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 )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007