Appeal No. 1997-1797
Application No. 08/198,936
composition different from the sheath” and “[t]hus a uniform
composition fiber . . . could anticipate the claims” (answer,
page 8). It is the examiner’s basic position that, when so
interpreted, the independent claim requirements relating to a
“core of the suspension” and a “viscose sheath” are satisfied
by the uniform filament composition resulting from the Cass
and Japanese reference combination. We share the appellants’
view, however, that this claim interpretation by the examiner
is improper.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the Patent
and Trademark Office, claims in an application are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and that 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 Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner’s claim interpretation is certainly broad.
Pursuant to this interpretation, step (b) of the appellants’
independent claim is satisfied even when forming filaments or
fibers from a uniform composition of suspension material in
homogenous admixture with viscose (i.e., in accordance with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007