Appeal No. 1999-2618
Application 08/647,223
Examiner's claim interpretation is erroneous and provides a
declaration by Mr. Kerwin to that effect. Mr. Kerwin2
addresses the Examiner's statement and testifies that one
cannot "couple" a signal past a source of voltage because
the source is considered to have zero impedance
(declaration, p. 3). Mr. Kerwin states his opinion that
(declaration, p. 3): "In my experience, the Examiner's use
of the word 'coupled' in the context quoted above is not
consistent with the ordinary and accepted use of the word,
and its cognates, in the art of electrical engineering."
The Examiner responds that the broadest reasonable
interpretation to one or ordinary skill in the lighting art
is "'coupled' or 'coupling' means to 'join' or 'link' at
least two elements together" (EA6).
As stated in In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358,
49 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999):
The declaration of Mr. Kerwin is entitled "Affidavit2
Under Rule 131." However, since the paper is not signed under
oath, but contains the statements in lieu of oath of 37 CFR
§ 1.68, it is properly termed a "declaration" rather than an
"affidavit." Also, since the purpose of the declaration is to
traverse a ground of rejection, not to swear back of the date
of a reference, it is a declaration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.132
(Rule 132), not § 1.131 (Rule 131).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007