Appeal 2006-2910
Application 10/226,586
only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
ANALYSIS
A. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The termination portion disclosed by Szwec is a feed thru portion of
the connector and has a length that is equal to the package wall thickness.
Therefore, the Examiner correctly characterizes the feed thru portion of
Szwec as “being at least as long as the package wall is thick” (Answer 7-8).
We also note that the portion of Szwec (col. 3, ll. 8-12) Appellants rely on to
argue that the connector may be shorter than the wall thickness (Br. 8), also
teaches that the connector may also “extend rearward of the panel rear face”
(col. 3, ll. 12-13). Szwec defines the rearward direction using the arrow R in
Figure 2, which points to the direction of the package interior. Therefore, as
an alternative configuration, Szwec discloses a connector that is equal or
longer than the package wall thickness and is axially adjustable such that the
launch end of the connector goes through the package wall and reaches
inside the package.
We also note that while Appellants’ Specification may define the
claimed term “axially adjusting” as being able to account for tolerance build-
up associated with the circuit substrate (Specification 11), the appealed
claims are not so limited. Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations 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). Thus, Appellants’ arguments
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013