Appeal No. 2006-1704
Application No. 10/640,544
Appellant responds that Saucier discloses a material but not
a material class or a material class that describes one or more
components of a recipe. Appellant argues that the examiner is
reading the claimed material class as just a material as if the
term class is not present in the claims. Thus, appellant argues
that the examiner’s interpretation of the claims has failed to
consider every limitation recited [reply brief, pages 2-4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims
on appeal for essentially the reasons argued by appellant in the
briefs. We agree with appellant’s position that the claimed
“material class” is not met by the individual specific materials
used within a recipe of Saucier. Appellant’s specification
describes the invention as follows:
[O]ne or more class structures are
defined that generically describe a grouping
of components that can be applied to one or
more recipes. Such components typically
include materials that are listed or stored
as members of a class [page 3, lines 13-16].
Thus, we agree with appellant that a material class must be
interpreted to read on a generic class of materials and the
claimed resolving of the material class to determine the actual
materials employed to manufacture the recipe requires that a
specific material within a class of materials be selected for use
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007