Appeal No. 2006-0235
Application 09/733,352
cf. Innova, 381 F.3d at 1119-20, 72 USPQ2d at 1007-08. In the embodiment relied on by
appellants, which is illustrated in specification FIG. 2, the function of pulley 22 as a “turnaround
pulley” as disclosed and illustrated describes the pulley in contact with fiber 8 which thus rotates
the pulley. However, there is no description or illustration of “a load cell” or the manner in
which it is “connected” to pulley 22 and the fiber in contact therewith. We find no other
disclosure in the written description or the drawings which describes or illustrates “a load cell”
or the manner in which “a load cell” is “connected” to “a pulley” (see also above p. 3).
On this record, we determine that the term “connected” in the context of the claim
language does not limit the claims to an actual physical engagement of any manner of load cell
to the pulley such that the pulley must be directly involved with the monitoring of fiber tension
by the load cell. Indeed, we find no basis in the claim language or in the written description in
the specification, including the drawings, on which to read the relied on embodiment as a
limitation into the claims. cf. Innova, 381 F.3d at 1119-20, 72 USPQ2d at 1007-08 (“connected
to” broadly construed); Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1577-
78, 40 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“connected to” narrowly construed).
Thus, we agree with the examiner’s finding that idler wheel 33 of Knowles Fig. 2, “is the pulley
. . . connected (via [tractor assembly] 11) to the load cell” 29 and “fiber contact causes the pulley
to rotate because the pulley is an idler wheel,” thus falling within claims 16 and 34 (answer, page
8), even though as appellants correctly point out, “the load cell in Knowles is connected to plate
28” and not directly to pulley.
We now consider claims 17 and 35, which require “a computer” that “monitors said
tension in said fiber via a load cell,” and claims 59 and 60, which require that the “tension is
monitored electronically.” With respect to the latter set of claims, appellants contend that
“electronic monitoring does not appear to be mentioned in Knowles” (reply brief, page 8), while
the examiner takes the position that “Knowles load cell 29 is an electronic device since it creates
electronic signals” (answer, page 11). On this record, we agree with the examiner. We found
above that Knowles would have disclosed that load cell 29 is connected to tractor assembly 11
on plate 28 via transducer 30 (see above pp. 5-6). We find that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have given the term “transducer” it customary dictionary meaning in context of “[a]ny
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007