Appeal No. 2004-1914
Application No. 09/739,288
now argued. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should
be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”).
Moreover, “center” is also a broad term, that may be defined as “[a] point or place
that is equally distant from the sides or outer boundaries of something; the middle: the
center of a stage.” The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition, Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, available at
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=center (Feb. 15, 2005). Whatever the extent
of the substrate that is shown sectioned in Figure 6 of Boyd, “a center” that is exactly
between the lower right side of the substrate as shown in the figure and the opposing
side (not shown) may be chosen at any point between the third and fourth sides of the
substrate; i.e., a “center” that may be anywhere along a line parallel to that the examiner
has drawn in the Answer that runs from the lower left to upper right of Figure 6. A
“center” thus may be selected such that a radial direction thereof is aligned with a
longitudinal direction of first and second contact pieces, even in the narrow sense of
“aligned” that is posited by appellants.
We thus sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Instant claim 15 recites that the predetermined shape of the “interconnection
pattern” of the connecting portion, which electrically connects the first and second
contact pieces (base claim 3), is “generally round.”
We find that the word “round” embraces several meanings.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007