Appeal No. 2005-2481
Application No. 10/075,096
OPINION
For the reasons expressed below, we cannot sustain any of
the rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
The examiner’s § 102 rejection cannot be sustained because
it is based upon erroneous findings of fact. Specifically, it is
the examiner’s finding that Berlit discloses “a root growth
barrier comprising a layer of a root-tip-trapping material 11,
14" (Final Office action, page 2) and that Berlit further
discloses “the root-tip-trapping material being polypropylene
which is a porous fabric” (id). However, the Berlit reference
contains no express teaching that layer 11 or layer 14 is formed
of a “root-tip-trapping material” (e.g., claim 1) or a “porous
fabric” (e.g., claim 49).
It is true that Berlit’s layers 11 and 12 can be formed of
certain polymers including polypropylene (e.g., see the paragraph
bridging pages 1 and 2 of the Berlit reference). Apparently, the
examiner believes the polypropylene layer taught by Berlit is
tantamount to a root-tip-trapping material and a porous fabric
because the here claimed root-tip-trapping material may be in the
form of a porous fabric made of certain materials including
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007