Appeal No. 97-2486
Application No. 08/308,983
coating of electrically conductive material 166 to "most" of
the exterior surface of the non-conductive body for the
purpose of conducting electricity to the working surface of
that body (see the paragraph bridging columns 14 and 15 of
that body). Consistent with the appellants' specification, we
are of the opinion that the formation of the coating 166 on
the non-conductive body of Eggers can broadly be considered to
be "tracing a conductive path." Moreover, Stasz clearly6
teaches that conductive lines or "tracings" 24 and 26 of
relative narrow width may be provided to conduct electricity
to the working end of the electrosurgical tool (see column 3,
lines 38-42), and this teaching would have suggested to the
artisan to similarly provide conductive lines or tracings of
relative narrow width on the body of the electrosurgical
instrument of Eggers, if for no other reason than to save on
the amount of electrically conductive material that is coated
or deposited. While the appellants contend that if the
6It is well settled that the terminology in a pending
application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir.
1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007