Appeal No. 2005-1611
Application No. 09/808,812
stable geotextile and the pliable geotextile are disclosed as
having different physical properties (e.g., see Table 1 on
specification page 18).
The examiner’s interpretation is not reasonable and
consistent with the above discussed specification disclosure. In
Gasper’s device or composite, each layer is formed of the same
material and therefore possesses the same properties. Such a
composite corresponds to the prior art composites described on
specification page 4 as having short-comings which the
appellants’ composite was designed to avoid. Viewed from this
perspective, the claim interpretation urged by the examiner
actually conflicts with the subject specification.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 as being
anticipated by Gasper.
The other rejections advanced on this appeal are all
premised on the examiner’s position that the appealed claim
1 requirement wherein “a dimensionally stable geotextile is
bonded to a pliable geotextile” is satisfied by Payne’s
disclosure of using two blankets for making a liner or composite.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007