LIM et al. V. CAVENEY et al. - Page 14




          Interference No. 103,987                                                    



          a second contact of a second contact pair.”  This portion of                
          the disclosure represents express support for the questioned                
          limitation of Caveney’s independent claim that corresponds                  
          exactly to the count.  This fact, by itself, would mandate a                
          result different from the result in Gentry.                                 




                    Furthermore, Caveney’s originally filed independent               
          claim refers expressly to “a capacitor for capacitively                     
          coupling a first contact of one contact pair to a second                    
          contact of a second contact pair.”  CX-2001 at 23.  The court               
          in Gentry specifically noted that the broadest original claim               
          of Sproule, Gentry’s inventor, was of narrower scope than the               
          amended claim asserted against Berkline, the alleged                        
          infringer, at trial.  In the instant case, the originally                   
          filed claim is of similar scope to the involved claim that                  
          corresponds exactly to the count.  Here again, this fact                    
          compels the opposite outcome from the holding in the Gentry                 
          decision.                                                                   



                                          14                                          





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007