Appeal No. 2004-1553
Application No. 09/915,631
interpretation of the term “connected” as used in appealed claims
1 and 10 when the claims are read in light of appellants’
specification. Based on this claim interpretation, we cannot
support the examiner’s strained position to the effect that plate
42 of Yamakado is indirectly connected to the vehicle frame
through either the controller component 167 and the engine mounts
162a and 162b or, alternatively, through the engine 161 and the
engine mounts.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the examiner’s
treatment of independent claim 19. Consistent with appellants’
specification3, and as normally applied in the structural sense,
we consider that the claim terminology calling for a plate “fixed
relative to” a component or frame to connote a plate that is
“fastened” to or “made fast to” a component or frame, both of
which are past tense equivalents of dictionary definitions of the
verb “fix.” On the other hand, we do not find any dictionary
definition of the verb “fix” which would allow the phrase “fixed
relative to” to encompass the sort of relationship disclosed in
Figures 4 and 17 of Yamakado between either of the electrodes 41,
42 of sensor 163 and the frame of the vehicle. Based on this
3Ib.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007