LIM et al. V. CAVENEY et al. - Page 13




          Interference No. 103,987                                                    



          controls" (emphasis supplied).  Gentry, 134 F.3d at 1479, 45                
          USPQ2d at 1503.  The                                                        


          court further found that “the disclosure is limited to sofas                
          in which the recliner control is located on the console"                    
          (emphasis supplied).  Id.  In the instant case, there is no                 
          disclosure specifically limiting Caveney to any particular                  
          number of conductive traces.  Lim cannot point to any                       
          disclosure that all traces are “essential,” or that one trace               
          per signal pair is  “the only possible” embodiment, or that                 
          “the disclosure is limited to” one trace for each signal pair.              
          This fact alone takes the instant case out of the purview of                
          Gentry.                                                                     
                    Additionally, it is our finding that the Caveney                  
          dis- closure has ipsis verbis support for a connector with a                
          single trace.  In the Caveney Summary of Invention (CX-2001 at              
          2),  it is stated that the Caveney capacitive label8                                                                        
          “capacitively couple[s] a first contact of one contact pair to              


               8    Caveney Exhibits are abbreviated CX- followed by the              
          appropriate exhibit number and page.                                        
                                          13                                          





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007