Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, looking at Figures 1 and 2 of Cherry,
we find that the probe wires 74 are “held in place” in epoxy ring
72 which corresponds to probe wires 31 “held in place” in epoxy
13 having insulating surface 13a in Figures 4 and 5 of the
Appellants’ disclosure. Therefore, even though an artisan might
look at element 50b and element 72 in Figure 1 of Cherry as an
epoxy material recited in the claim, the artisan must conclude
from the recitation “probe wires...held in place therein” in
claim 17 that the epoxy material defined by element 72 in Cherry
corresponds to there cited epoxy material in claim 17. Keeping
this in mind, we also find that Cherry does not meet the recited
limitation, “additional connections are being made between said
conducting lines and said probe wires between said tip ends and
said epoxy material” (claim 17). Consequently, we find that
Cherry does not meet the limitations of claim 17. Since claim 1
and its dependent claims 2-4 contain further limitations than
claim 17, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims
over Cherry.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007