Appeal No. 2006-1604 Page 10
Application No. 09/903,201
embodiments, demo pod 210 can be part of a molded cable including
controller 128 and demo pod 210 …” [specification, page 4, ¶0016].
We therefore find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim language that is consistent with the specification requires a controller
that is an integral part of a cable assembly. We also find that the
interpretation argued by Appellants is consistent with the interpretation that
those skilled in the art would reach.
The examiner relies upon the Lin patent for its teaching of a multi-
processing micro-controller 11, as shown in fig. 1. [answer, page 3]. Lin
clearly shows in fig. 1 an Adapter 1 (as shown in the dotted rectangle that
includes multi-processing micro-controller 11) that is connected to USB
digital still camera 2 via cable 4. Likewise, cable 5 is clearly shown
connecting the USB Printer Port 15 of Adapter 1 to the USB Printer 3 [Fig.
1]. The Lin patent specification confirms that Adapter 1 (which includes
multi-processing micro-controller 11) is not an integral part of a cable, as
required by the instant claims:
See Lin, col. 2, lines 53-67 (emphasis added):
As shown in FIG. 1, a USB-DSC port 14 of the adaptor 1 is connected with the USB-
DSC 2; the coupling between the USB-DSC port 14 and the USB-DSC 2 is a USB
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007