Appeal No. 2006-1194
Application No. 10/601,204
shown in disclosed Figure 4 and described in terms of words in the noted description in the
specification of Figure 4 is the direct connection between various circuit elements. This is not
what is claimed in terms of the broadly defined terminology “electrically connected.” The
examiner correctly points out at the bottom of page 6 of the Answer that the “present
specification does not supply an explicit definition for the term ‘electrically connected.’” The
examiner has persuasively shown in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the Answer that at
least three prior patents utilize the term “electrically connected” to define a connection with
intervening elements as being well-known in the art.
Appellant’s second argument at page 7 of the Brief, that the examiner’s interpretation that
the noted term is in direct conflict with usage in the art, is misplaced. We have not been
provided a copy of the material appellant quotes from at page 7 of the Brief relating to a prior art
book relating to the topic of the art of electronics. Notwithstanding this, the quoted portion
indicates that in real circuits things are connected together with wires, metallic conductors, each
of which has the same voltage on it everywhere with respect to ground. Claim 7 is not
coextensive in terms. No wires are claimed, such as to lead to the conclusion that a direct
connection is otherwise stated.
Lastly, we do not agree with appellant’s assertion that the term “electrically connected”
as interpreted by the examiner renders a verbal description of the circuit connectivity
meaningless. On the contrary, the use of the noted term is a broad recitation generally intended
to avoid the recitation of a direct electrical connection such as to encompass or otherwise
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007