Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831
Regarding the rejection of claim 4, Appellant argues that Trane does
not suggest an interposer to compensate for mechanical and electrical
differences related to the I/O device because an opening to match phone 16
would not need any adaptor (Br. 7, Reply Br. 8). We again agree with the
Examiner (Answer 52) that the interface used in Trane for mechanical and
electrical connection between the phone and the keyboard base reads on the
claimed “interposer” as both receiving opening 46 and electrical connection
54 are clearly described in the reference (col. 5, ll. 44-64). Appellant’s
extensive arguments directed to the dictionary meaning of the term
“interposer” are not convincing since Appellant’s own Specification
describes the interposer as merely having connector features that match both
the computer and the I/O device (Specification 6:8-19). Claims will be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitation appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Therefore, considering the broadest claim interpretation, the recited
interposer means nothing more than an interface for connecting the phone to
the computer. We find that identical functional features are described by
Trane as the connection means for the power, data, and antenna as well as
2 See footnote 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013