Appeal No. 2000-0558 Page 9
Application No. 08/912,585
The appellant's only argument is that the examiner has
failed to indicate how or where the prior art of record
teaches the connection between the electrically conductive
film and ground which is integral with a feeding mechanism as
recited in claim 8 (reply brief, page 6). The appellant does
not dispute that the data cartridge, base plate, magnetic tape
and feeding mechanism are part of the applicant's admitted
prior art, indeed claim 8 is in Jepson format with these
features in the preamble. We note that the term "integral", as
used in the context of applicant's specification, would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill to mean electrically
connected. 4 This is consistent with appellant's statement
that the electrical path from the conductive film on the base
plate to ground is provided by, or integral with, the feeding
mechanism (brief, page 4).
4 It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and that claim language should be read in
(continued...)
4(...continued)
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007