Appeal No. 2003-0271 Page 7
Application No. 09/592,058
and the chassis ground while also providing a high frequency coupling between the
outer shell of the conductor and the chassis ground as recited in claim 15.
The examiner asserts (answer, pp. 9-11) that the above-noted limitations of
claims 1, 10 and 15 are readable on Weidler's capacitive coupling assembly 60.
Specifically, the examiner determined that Weidler's dielectric member 61 was a circuit
board and that Weidler's conductive sheets 62, 63 and connected capacitors 72 was a
circuit. The examiner further determined that Weidler's capacitive coupling assembly 60
inherently provides a galvanically isolated high frequency coupling between the
conductive shell 14 of the connector 10 and the conductive panel 4.
In our view, the examiner has presented a prima facie case of anticipation.1 The
USPTO applies to the verbiage of the claims before it the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise
that may be afforded by the written description contained in the appellants' specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The American
1 It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation resides with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007