Ex parte TUOMINEN et al. - Page 6

          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.                              

          Edward C. Kimlin                )                                           
               Administrative Patent Judge     )                                      
                         Bradley R. Garris               ) BOARD OF                   
                         Administrative Patent Judge     )   APPEALS AND              
                                                  )  INTERFERENCES                    
               Beverly A. Pawlikowski                  )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge     )                            

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007