Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
identified any specific definitions in the specification for these terms. Using these
definitions and the specific limitations recited in the language of independent claim 9,
we note that the language of claim 9 recites
first and second substantially planar locks projecting respectively from the
first and second side walls into the wire-receiving space in positions
spaced from the insulation-displacement portions, said planar locks being
aligned substantially normal to the respective side walls, said first and
second locks being formed respectively with first and second edges
defining portions of the first and second locks furthest from the respective
first and second side walls. (Emphasis added.)
In the language used in independent claim 9, we note that the locks need only be
“substantially planar.” We look to the specification for a definition, but we do not find a
definition of “substantially” planar in appellants’ specification, therefore we find that
elements 41a and 41b of Endo are substantially planar, substantially normal to the side
walls and displaced from the insulation-displacement portions and contact the wire at
the furthest edge of the lock from the sidewall. Here, the language of the claims does
not recite that the contact must be the distal end of the substantially planar lock or that
the lock must be completely planar or perpendicular to the wire. We find that as long as
the lock is not a completely curved surface that the multiple planes taught by Endo
would have been substantially planar since the claim does not recite substantially a
single plane. Here we find the examiner’s rejection to be based upon the breadth of
appellants’ claimed invention. Appellants have neither argued nor identified any
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007