Appeal No. 1998-0500 Application 08/504,478 has disregarded the recitations set forth in the preambles and the whereby clauses of independent claims 13 and 18 [brief, pages 6-7]. The examiner responds that the structural elements of the claims are all disclosed in Brodsky so that Brodsky must function in the same manner as appellant’s invention [answer, pages 3-5]. Although the basic difference between appellant’s position and the examiner’s position revolves around claim interpretation of the preamble and the whereby clause, we decide this issue on the more fundamental observation that Brodsky does not even disclose the structure means and the elastomeric interface interconnected as recited in the claims. The examiner has identified parts 51 and 31 of Brodsky as corresponding to the two mating parts. There is no conductive pattern, however, associated with element 31. Thus, there is no structure in Brodsky which corresponds to the first and second structure means of claim 13 because these structure means must include the conductive patterns for verifying alignment and contact of the mated parts. The claim -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007