Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/068,243
The examiner responds (answer, page 8) that the term
“homogenous” was added to the disclosure in the amendment filed
March 19, 2003, and that the specification has no description or
definition of the term “homogenous.” It is argued (id.) that by
adding the term “homogenous” appellant is attempting to cover
more than what was disclosed because “homogenous” could cover a
roller with multiple layers of multiple materials, whereas
appellant’s monolithic roller can only be made of a single layer
with a single material.
In the reply brief, appellant asserts (page 2) that
“Applicant and the Examiner agree that “monolithic” means solid
and uniform. This definition is consistent with the term
“homogenous”, which means “of the same or a similar kind or
nature” or “uniform in structure or composition throughout”
Appellant adds (reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that “[a]ccording to
binding precedent, “monolithic” and “homogenous”, which can be
interpreted as being consistent are to be interpreted as being
consistent.”
From our review of the specification, we find that the term
“homogeneous” does not appear, and agree with the examiner that
there is no definition or description of the term in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007