Appeal No. 2000-2266
Application No. 09/069,700
that the system of Lynch has no teaching or suggestion of using
differential signalling as required in the appealed claims.
After reviewing the Lynch reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as expressed in the Brief. While we agree with the
Examiner that Lynch provides a teaching of split pin printed
circuit board connectors, our review of the appealed independent
claims reveals an additional requirement, i.e., the connection to
the printed circuit board of a “differential signal pair.”
Although the Examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that Lynch
provides for a pair of conductors 14a and 14b which terminate at
the split pin arrangement 54, we find no support for the
Examiner’s apparent conclusion that, simply because two conductor
lines terminate at a pin structure, such conductor lines
necessarily correspond to a differential signal pair. The
Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). In reaching this determination, we construe the
claimed feature of a “differential signal pair” to be very
narrowly defined, as argued by Appellants (Brief, pages 7-9) and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007