Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/068,243
monolithic stock material as disclosed in appellant’s
specification.
We are not persuaded that this definition, or the examiner’s
definition, is incongruous with the specification because there
is nothing in the specification defining or describing the term
”homogenous” for us to compare with. We find that the definition
of the term “homogenous” located by the Board, is broad enough to
read on an article made of plural layers of the same material, or
multiple layers of different materials that are of the same or
similar thickness, as advanced by the examiner. On page 2 of the
reply brief, appellant defines “homogenous” as being “of the same
or a similar kind or nature” or “uniform in structure or
composition throughout.” From the definition provided by
appellant, we similarly find, for the reasons, supra, that
“homogenous” and “monolithic” do not have the same meaning. Nor
do the terms have the same scope, with the term “homogeneous”
being broader and more encompassing that “monolithic”. In
addition, on page 5 of the reply brief, appellant’s state
“Applicant’s interpretation of ‘homogeneous’, e.g. solid
structure.” However, our interpretation of the term is broader
than a solid structure, and we find nothing in the specification
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007