Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,941
example, the examiner contends that the phrase is satisfied by
structure 104-2 shown in Figure 1 of Japanese Patent ‘209.
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).
The examiner offers creative support for the proposed
interpretation. However, the interpretation is, ultimately,
unreasonable. It ignores the claim language that further
defines each coil as having “a plurality of adjacent turns,”
and is inconsistent with the specification and drawings.
Figure 2 shows what is meant by “concentric cylindrical
coils,” and the prior art as a whole fails to suggest such an
arrangement in a variable tuning inductor. Therefore, the
obviousness rejections will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejections are not sustained.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007