Appeal No. 1997-4287 Application No. 08/275,864 mentioned claim features is not reasonable and is not consistent with the subject specification (e.g., see lines 3 and 4 on specification page 3). Likewise, the claim language under review would not be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in the manner urged by the examiner as evinced, for example, by the “Dictionary of Fiber & Textile Technology” copy which is attached to the appellants’ brief as Appendix B. Because the record before us plainly reveals that the examiner’s claim interpretation is improper, we cannot sustain his section 103 rejection of the appealed claims as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Kloucek. The decision of the examiner is reversed. REVERSED Edward C. Kimlin ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) Bradley R. Garris ) BOARD OF PATENT Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) Beverly A. Pawlikowski ) Administrative Patent Judge ) 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007