Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
Preputnick argues that Provencher's specification does not
describe 'a plurality of first and second contacts" as is recited
in Provencher's independent claim 17. Preputnick takes that
position despite the fact that Provencher's specification
discloses a plurality of contacts that is molded in its
intermediate portion one way to form a first half-module and
another plurality of contacts that is molded in its intermediate
portion a different way to form a second half-module.
Preputnick's reasoning is that because the one set of plurality
of contacts used to make the first half-module is identical in
structure in every respect to the other set of plurality of
contacts used to make the second half-module, the two sets of
plurality of contacts cannot be regarded as 'first and second"
contacts. According to Preputnick, the first and second contacts
cannot, by their own terms, be identical in structure to each
other.
We reject Preputnick's argument.
Provencher does not assert that its specification sets forth
a special definition for any term. Therefore, we read its
disclosure and claims according to the ordinary meaning and usage
of words in the English language. During proceedings before the
USPTO, claims are properly construed according to their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007