Appeal No. 96-1342
Application 08/118,878
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nelson in view of Knoll or Moisin.
The examiner’s rejections rely on broadly
interpreting the recited “outer sheathing conductor” to
include a sheath which mechanically guides (conducts) other
components such as in Nelson
but which is not electrically conductive. Appellants argue
that the recited phrase cannot be so broadly interpreted.
Claims undergoing examination are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
In the present case, the “outer sheathing conductor”
is recited as “connected to the center tap of said isolation
transformer.” Because the outer sheathing conductor must
connect to electrical components, “conductor” is impliedly
limited to “electrical conductor.” Therefore, the examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007