Appeal No. 2004-1822
Application No. 09/550,863
Beginning on page 9 of the supplemental brief, appellants
argue that their use of the term “echo” is not contrary to the
ordinary meaning of the word “echo.” Appellants refer to U.S.
Patent No. 6,108,404 to Hardy, to show that appellants’ use of
the term “echo” is not contrary to the ordinary meaning of the
word “echo.” Beginning on page 2 of the reply brief, appellants
also argue that 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, regarding
indefiniteness is whether the claim meets the threshold
requirements of clarity and precision, not whether a more
suitable language or mode of expression is available. We agree,
and we refer to the following excerpts from appellants’
specification in support thereof.
Beginning on page 2, at line 17, the specification states:
“[t]he invention solves the above problems with an echo plug
that facilitates robust testing under dynamic test
conditions by looping test signals through a wireless
telephone back to a test system. The echo plug fits into
the hands-free jack of a wireless telephone and is easily
moved from one wireless telephone to another. The wireless
telephones retain their mobility with the echo plug
attached. The echo plug facilitates the testing of
different wireless telephones at various locations over
different communication systems.”
On page 2, at line 24, the specification states:
“[o]ne echo plug has a pin and a circuit. The pin is
physically compatible with the hands-free jack of a
wireless telephone. The pin has a speaker connection
and a microphone connection. The circuit couples the
speaker connection to the microphone connection. In
operation, this echo plug receives a signal from the
speaker connection of the hands-free jack and transfers
the signal to the microphone connection of the hands-
free jack.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007