Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 7
Here, as indicated by the examiner in the answer (page 14),
the specification does not define the meaning of “matrix” to
exclude the cellular foam material described in Jordan. In this
regard, the description in the subject specification (page 3,
lines 6-8) setting forth that appellant’s “matrix desirably
comprises a multiplicity of matrix elements arrayed within and
each generally perpendicular to the principal plane of the
laminate” merely specifies a desired preferred matrix arrangement
and does not explicitly require a particular definition for that
term as used in the claims. Also, we observe that appellant does
not dispute the examiner’s determination that Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary referred to by the examiner defines
“matrix” as “material in which something is enclosed or
embedded." See also the definition 3b of “matrix” in Merriam-
Webster’s Online Dictionary (appellant’s reply brief, appendix
1). Those broader definitions of the term “matrix” as employed
by the examiner have not been shown by appellants to be
unreasonable in that they are inconsistent with or non-
encompassing of appellant’s specific disclosed embodiments.
Thus, we hold that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
matrix as determined by the examiner prevails in this case. As
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007