Appeal 2006-2764
Application 10/376,830
All of the above-noted rejections are premised on the Examiner's
interpretation of the claim phase "all first and second electrodes are disposed
coaxially with respect to each other" (claim 1). It is the Examiner's position
that "the claim recitation 'all first and second electrodes are disposed
coaxially with respect to each other' is a broad limitation neither imparting
specific spatial orientation nor structural orientation" (Answer 12). In this
regard, it is the Examiner's further position that "it can be said that the two
cathode positive electrodes 6 [i.e., the left half of electrode 6 and the right
half of electrode 6 as shown in Urry's sole figure] and the anode negative
electrode 10 are coaxial with respect to an imaginary line (axis) …
[whereby] all electrodes would be disposed coaxially with respect to that
line" (id.).
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Academy of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner's afore-quoted claim interpretation is not a reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant's Specification. This is because the
Specification expressly discloses the following definition:
"Electrodes disposed coaxially with respect to each other"
means that the coaxial electrodes are disposed such that each
inner electrode is radially completely surrounded by the
electrode immediately outside of it; coaxial electrodes may, but
do not necessarily, have a common longitudinal axis; spirally
wound electrodes are not considered to be disposed coaxially
with respect to each other. [Specification 5].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013