Appeal No. 2004-2097
Application No. 09/501,013
comprise more than one layer of material which may be the same
or different.” (Column 8, lines 43-57.)
The examiner’s position is that Murch’s protective cover
layer and the intumescent layer correspond to the here recited
“core layer” and “covering layer,” respectively, and that,
therefore, Murch’s intumescent laminate system anticipates the
invention recited in appealed claim 1. (Answer at 6.) We
cannot agree.
The examiner does not challenge the appellant’s contention
that the term “‘core’ is defined as ‘[a] central part of
different character from what which surrounds it’, ‘[t]he
interior part of a wall or column’” with any other dictionary
definition.2 (Appeal brief filed Jul. 7, 2003, paper 11, pages
7-8.) Rather, the examiner argues (answer at 6):
It is noted that the provided definition of core
is inconsistent with Appellants’ [sic] own claims.
Independent claim 1 claims a material that comprises:
a core layer having at least one outer surface and a
covering layer covering the core layer at said at
least one outer surface. The language used in the
claims indicates two layers...
2 Cf. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Absent an express definition in their
specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions
or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the
PTO’s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other
sources that support its interpretation.”) (Emphasis added.).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007