Appeal No. 2004 1681
Application No. 09/749,216
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13,
17-20, and 22
We consider claims 1, 10, 12, and 22 in this rejection.
We refer to pages 4-5 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection. We refer to pages 5-9
of the brief, and pages 1-2 of the reply brief, regarding
appellant’s position for this rejection.
Claim 1
With regard to claim 1, appellant argues that Schwalm
does not disclose a contact electrode “affixed substantially
directly” to said wallplate. Brief, pages 5-7 and reply
brief, pages 1-2. Appellant argues that he has defined
“substantially directly” as mounting of the electrode to the
wallplate with or without an intervening part or parts, not
essential to the invention, such as fasteners, intervening
layers of insulating or non-insulating material, studs,
separators, glue, and other equivalents to mounting not
required to change the operation of the invention. Brief,
page 5.
As an initial matter, we note that during patent
examination, the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 320, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The
claimed phrase “affixed substantially directly to said
wallplate” is not as limited as appellant suggests on pages
5-6 of the brief. In fact, paragraph 22 on page 5 of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007