Appeal No. 2005-0005
Application No. 10/156,568
1990); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 678, 7 USPQ2d 1315,
1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In determining novelty, the first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define. In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). Further, as
pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the claim.
"[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the language of
independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites a “multiconductor connector adapted
to be connected to a plurality of paired cables for high-speed transmission of a signal,
wherein each of the paired cables comprise a first terminal and a second terminal, and
a distance between the first terminal and the second terminal is equal to a
predetermined distance.” Therefore, while the actual paired cable need not be present
in the claimed conductor, the characteristics thereof and the two conductors with a
predetermined distance therebetween do establish that the characteristics of the
insulator plate must meet with respect to the terminals of the paired cables.
From our review of the teachings of Hansell, we do not find a teaching of an
insulator plate with the aligned first and second contacts which are taught to not alter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007