Appeal No. 2005-1611
Application No. 09/808,812
The appellants argue that Gasper’s multiple layers cannot be
both a dimensionally stable geotextile and a pliable geotextile
since the layers are formed of the same sheet material.
According to the examiner, this argument is unpersuasive. The
examiner describes her position regarding this matter on page
4 of the answer as follows:
[T]he claims do not specify that the material used as
a dimensionally stable material is different from the
material used as a pliable geotextile. It is not the
examiner’s position that some of the materials in Gasper
form into rigid geotextiles while others form into soft,
pliable geotextiles. Rather, it is the examiner’s position
that the same material may function as both a dimensionally
stable material and as a pliable material. In the broadest
interpretation of the claims, multiple layers of the same
material having both supportive and flexible characteristics
would read on the appellant’s [sic, appellants’] claim.
Although the specification exemplifies different materials
for each layer, the claims do not distinguish such a
composite from one having multiple layers of material having
both stable and flexible character.
It is well settled that, during examination proceedings,
application claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
As correctly indicated by the examiner, appealed independent
claim 1 does not specify that the dimensionally stable geotextile
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007