Interference No. 103,987
controls" (emphasis supplied). Gentry, 134 F.3d at 1479, 45
USPQ2d at 1503. The
court further found that “the disclosure is limited to sofas
in which the recliner control is located on the console"
(emphasis supplied). Id. In the instant case, there is no
disclosure specifically limiting Caveney to any particular
number of conductive traces. Lim cannot point to any
disclosure that all traces are “essential,” or that one trace
per signal pair is “the only possible” embodiment, or that
“the disclosure is limited to” one trace for each signal pair.
This fact alone takes the instant case out of the purview of
Gentry.
Additionally, it is our finding that the Caveney
dis- closure has ipsis verbis support for a connector with a
single trace. In the Caveney Summary of Invention (CX-2001 at
2), it is stated that the Caveney capacitive label8
“capacitively couple[s] a first contact of one contact pair to
8 Caveney Exhibits are abbreviated CX- followed by the
appropriate exhibit number and page.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007