Appeal No. 1998-0500
Application 08/504,478
has disregarded the recitations set forth in the preambles and
the whereby clauses of independent claims 13 and 18 [brief,
pages 6-7]. The examiner responds that the structural
elements of the claims are all disclosed in Brodsky so that
Brodsky must function in the same manner as appellant’s
invention [answer, pages 3-5].
Although the basic difference between appellant’s
position and the examiner’s position revolves around claim
interpretation of the preamble and the whereby clause, we
decide this issue on the more fundamental observation that
Brodsky does not even disclose the structure means and the
elastomeric interface interconnected as recited in the claims.
The examiner has identified parts 51 and 31 of Brodsky
as corresponding to the two mating parts. There is no
conductive pattern, however, associated with element 31.
Thus, there is no structure in Brodsky which corresponds to
the first and second structure means of claim 13 because these
structure means must include the conductive patterns for
verifying alignment and contact of the mated parts. The claim
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007