Appeal No. 2006-0450 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/044,141
substantially parallel relation to the second surface and
laterally offset outwardly relative to the first surface”
(emphasis and under lining original), as recited in claim 1. The
examiner responds (answer, page 16) that this limitation is met,
as shown in the diagram provided on page 16 of the answer, since
first surface A is facing downward and surface B is facing
upward. The examiner adds that the limitation is met because A
and B are on opposite sides of an imaginary center line, and that
“[a]s such, it is not clear how C, which is laterally offset from
A and, like A, is facing downward (or, like A is on the opposite
side of the imaginary center line), is not opposed to B.”
Figure 5 of Chun-Jen reveals that the top surface of finger
322 of lead 320, relied upon by the examiner to show the claimed
second planar surface, is longitudinally offset to the right of
the lower surface of the lead 320, relied upon by the examiner as
the third planar surface. Thus, the issue arises as to what is
needed to meet the term “opposed” as it appears in claim 1. From
our review of the specification, we find that although the term
is used in the description of the invention, there is no specific
definition for the term “opposed.” Thus, the term should be
construed as it would have been understood by an artisan. "The
general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007