Ex parte TUOMINEN et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1997-4287                                                        
          Application No. 08/275,864                                                  

          1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982).  On the record of                
          this appeal, the examiner has provided no acceptable reasoning              
          and no evidence at all which supports his aforenoted                        
          enablement viewpoint.                                                       
               It follows that we also cannot sustain the examiner’s                  
          section 112, first paragraph, rejection of the appealed                     
               The pivotal consideration in assessing the propriety of                
          the section 103 rejection before us relates to whether the                  
          examiner has properly interpreted the “bicomponent filaments”               
          feature of independent claim 1 and the “sheath around a core”               
          feature of separately argued dependent claims 6 through 8.  As              
          a consequence, it is appropriate to emphasize 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).  As thoroughly explained by the appellants in their                  
          brief, the examiner’s interpretation of the previously                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007