Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 12
Application No. 08/454,898
the straight portion of the contact 74 which is within the
housing, whereas claim 4 requires the beam portion to be
tapered (which beam portion is recited in parent claim 1 as
extending from a second surface of the housing). As to claim 5
(and claim 10 which depends therefrom) the examiner contends
that Biechler shows a sheet at 78. In our view, the examiner
is attempting to expand the meaning of "sheet" beyond all
reason. Biechler's numeral 78 depicts a contact area on the
resilient arms of the contact members that have gold or nickel
plated thereon (see col. 6, lines 2-4). Terms in a claim
should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845
F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). We can think of no circumstances under which the
artisan, consistent with the appellants' specification, would
construe the small area of plating on the contacts of Biechler
to correspond to a "sheet" as claimed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007