Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
would be a total reduction of radiation incident there which
still would be consistent with the breadth of the language of “a
reduced portion of radiation incident thereon” of claim 1 on
appeal. It would therefore still be relatively uniform since it
would be totally uniform underneath the pattern.
Since there are no arguments presented in the brief and
reply brief as to the features of dependent claims 2 through 6 on
appeal, they fall with our consideration of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Turning to the rejection of claims 7 to 12 and 19 to 24 and
26 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the collective
teachings of Pease in view of Smith, we affirm in part this
rejection as to certain claims as set forth in accordance with
our analysis to follow.
Initially, we conclude that Pease is properly combinable
with Smith under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at least for the reasons set
forth by the examiner at the sixth page of the answer, that
reason essentially being that Smith teaches the desirability
of reducing edge blurring that results from the effects of
diffraction, an obvious enhancement to the teachings in Pease.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007