Appeal No. 1995-4675
Application No. 07/875,452
encompass the barrier layer as taught by EPA ‘922 [i.e.,
Löfgren] which includes amorphous nylon and EVOH” (Answer,
page 6). In response, the appellants argue that “the English
language meaning of the [claim 1] phrase ‘an amorphous nylon
layer’ is exactly as stated, namely, a layer of amorphous
nylon, not a layer of amorphous nylon mixed with EVOH” (Reply
Brief, page 4). Thus, the determinative issue presented by
these rejections is whether it is appropriate to interpret the
claim phrase “an amorphous nylon layer” as encompassing
Löfgren’s layer of amorphous nylon mixed with EVOH.
In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office,
claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1546, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). It follows that the appellants’ claim phrase “an
amorphous nylon layer” may be broadly interpreted as
encompassing a layer of amorphous nylon mixed with EVOH in
accordance with the examiner’s position only if such an
interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the subject
specification. With this in mind, we observe that the
appellants’ specification including the various embodiments,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007