Interference No. 103,987
a second contact of a second contact pair.” This portion of
the disclosure represents express support for the questioned
limitation of Caveney’s independent claim that corresponds
exactly to the count. This fact, by itself, would mandate a
result different from the result in Gentry.
Furthermore, Caveney’s originally filed independent
claim refers expressly to “a capacitor for capacitively
coupling a first contact of one contact pair to a second
contact of a second contact pair.” CX-2001 at 23. The court
in Gentry specifically noted that the broadest original claim
of Sproule, Gentry’s inventor, was of narrower scope than the
amended claim asserted against Berkline, the alleged
infringer, at trial. In the instant case, the originally
filed claim is of similar scope to the involved claim that
corresponds exactly to the count. Here again, this fact
compels the opposite outcome from the holding in the Gentry
decision.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007