Appeal No. 2002-1471 Page 6
Application No. 09/141,183
tabs 34, 36 must be closed sufficiently to prevent sleeve 22 from
sliding or moving longitudinally. Appellants assert (id.) that
this disclosure of Hagen teaches away from the claim limitation
requiring that the capture tabs allow the conductor sleeve to
slide or move longitudinally. The examiner's position is that
claim 1 recites "a first slide capture adapted to slidably secure
the conductor sleeve." In the examiner's opinion (answer, page
4), the tabs are "adaptable" to not be closed sufficiently, and
therefore would prevent movement. Appellants argue (brief, page
7) that “there is no teaching or suggestion that these captures
in the Hagen patent are, or can be, adapted to allow longitudinal
movement while substantially restraining movement in all
orthogonal directions. According to appellants, the Hagen patent
specifically requires that these captures must be closed
sufficiently to prevent conductor sleeve 22 from sliding or
moving longitudinally.”
Before addressing the examiner's rejections based upon prior
art, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed subject
matter be fully understood. The properly interpreted claim must
then be compared with the prior art. Claim interpretation must
begin with the language of the claim itself. See Smithkline
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007