Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
with the functions listed in the declaration, such as “low-voltage, high-frequency” applications.
Additionally, while the declaration may refer to one or more recognized definitions associated with the
term “coaxial cable” -- such as, on page 2 of the declaration, “the outer conductor is an
electromagnetic shield and must be designed to provide the required shielding effectiveness or surface
transfer impedance” -- the definitions are narrower than the broadest reasonable definition of the term,
as evidenced supra by the dictionary definition of the term.
Appellants submit a related argument, appearing principally on pages 7 through 9 of the Brief.
Appellants refer to column 1, lines 48 through 50 of Berends (see Brief, page 7), and argue that since
the reference discloses that “internal conductor 5 is conductively connected to the conductive layer of
lacquer 3 (not shown),” there is but a single conductor in the reference, contrary to the Claim 1
requirement of a “central conductor” and an “outer conductor.” However, upon consideration of the
actual requirements of Claim 1, we view the argument as untenable.
Claim 1 requires “an electrically insulating layer separating [the] central and [the] outer
conductor.” Berends discloses an electrically insulating layer 4 separating the central conductor 5 and
the outer conductor 3. The claim does not distinguish over central conductor 5 and outer conductor 3
being “conductively connected,” as disclosed by Berends. We decline to read disclosed limitations into
the claim. We also decline to read intended use from the specification into the claim. Suppose, for
example, a section of the cable disclosed by Berends was cut away from the portion of the cable
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007