Appeal No. 1997-1797
Application No. 08/198,936
the Cass process) because “one can call the outer layer . . .
a sheath and the remaining portion of the fiber the core”
(answer, page 7). The problem with this interpretation is
that it is not a reasonable interpretation consistent with the
appellants’ specification. For example, the first full
paragraph on page 3 of the subject specification discusses the
Cass process as being unsatisfactory and thereby makes it
clear that the examiner’s claim interpretation is unreasonable
and inconsistent with the specification. Moreover, we
perceive merit in the appellants’ argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not interpret appealed claim 1
as the examiner has done.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that,
even if the applied references were combined in the manner
proposed by the examiner, the process resulting from this
combination would not correspond to the process defined by
appealed claim 1 when given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the appellants’ specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art. We cannot sustain, therefore, the examiner’s section 103
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007