Appeal 2007-2577
Application 90/006,344
alternative embodiments that he might instead be claiming. Claim
constructions that exclude the disclosed embodiment are disfavored.
Consequently, we understand the outward protrusion of the tubular21
conductors to include protrusion into but not beyond the locking sockets.
Prazoff's argument is not consistent with the broadest reasonable
construction of this limitation.22
second connecting member
Prazoff repeats his arguments that the assembly of subunits in Lin
cannot satisfy the requirements of this limitation. The arguments fail as they
did for the first connecting member. The word "member" in itself does not
require a unitary construction or exclude an assembly of subunits. We
cannot construe claim 1 more narrowly than Prazoff elected to write it.
a pair of conductive terminals…outwardly extended from said
second member head portion
Prazoff notes that Lin's terminals 242 extend from plug 21. From this
fact, Prazoff argues that the terminals do not extend from the second
member head portion.23 We cannot agree. The examiner associates the
second member head portion with Lin's connecting socket 20a, which
includes the plug 21, a nut 22, and a connecting cylinder 23.24 Thus, the
21 We note that the "tubular" conductors in Prazoff's disclosure do not appear
to be tubular in shape. Hence, we construe "tubular" broadly to mean
"associated with the tube-shaped socket" rather than imposing a tube-shape
on the conductor itself.
22 We are concerned that an argument would be advanced for a construction
so at odds with the supporting disclosure.
23 Br. 20.
24 Spec. 3:63-68.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013