Appeal No. 2005-1611
Application No. 09/808,812
and the pliable geotextile are made from different materials.
Nevertheless, the ultimate issue is whether the examiner’s broad
interpretation of this claim (i.e., “multiple layers of the same
material having both supportive and flexible characteristics
would read on the appellant’s [sic] claim”; answer, page 4) is
reasonable and consistent with the appellants’ specification.
From our perspective, this interpretation cannot be accepted
because it is not reasonable and consistent with the subject
specification.
The specification for this application clearly reveals
that the objectives of the appellants’ invention are not
satisfied by the mere presence of multiple layers of the
same material. Indeed, pages 3 and 4 of the specification
describe the inadequacies of prior art composites having multiple
layers of the same material. According to the specification
disclosure, the invention objectives are achieved by using
two different types of geotextiles to thereby obtain the
here claimed dimensionally stable geotextile and pliable
geotextile (e.g., see the first full paragraph on page 6 and the
paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7). Moreover, the dimensionally
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007