Appeal No. 2006-2789
Application No. 10/215,217
We find that the examiner’s interpretation of DE ‘297 is reasonable. First,
the scope and breadth of the limitations of claim 8 calling for the first and second
plug connector parts are fully met by the separate structures in DE ‘297 indicated
by the examiner. Significantly, claim 8 does not further limit the structure of the
first and second connecting parts apart from receiving a female plug and adapter
respectively.
Turning to the prior art, we agree with the examiner that the scope and
breadth of the “first plug connector part” is fully met by the structure of electronic
device 1 in Fig. 2 of DE ‘297 since that structure, at least in part, facilitates the
insertion and removal of plug connecting devices 4 [see DE ‘297, Fig. 1]. In
addition, an RJ45 female plug 2 is located within the electronic device 1 (“first
plug connector part”). Furthermore, we agree with the examiner that the
“second plug connector part” is fully met by protective housing 7 of DE ‘297.
Moreover, in our view, the scope and breadth of the adapter limitation of claim 8
fully reads on DE ‘297. That is, the term “adapter” does not preclude the RJ45
plug 17 itself as well as associated structure within protective housing 7 that
receives the plug (e.g., locking hook 53, locking projection 55, etc.).
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument that the term “adapter”
must be interpreted more narrowly in light of appellants’ disclosure that shows
and describes an adapter 28 [reply brief, page 8]. During patent examination, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007