Appeal No. 95-1923 Application 08/051,987 or substance. Even assuming that Siebert’s two Kerr cells, OKC-1 and OKC-2, are made of the same type of material, the material physically constituting OKC-1 does not physically constitute OKC-2, and vice-versa. The cells are two separate objects or mediums, even if made of the same material, such that once the material of OKC-1 is identified as said non-linear medium of the first optical gate of claim 19, the material of OKC-2 cannot be later identified as said non-linear medium of the second optical gate of the claim. Furthermore, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary does not appear to support the examiner’s position that a medium is a type of material or substance as he contends. The dictionary, in pertinent part, states that a medium is, 2 : a means of effecting or conveying something: as a (1): a substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect, . . . e : material or technical means of artistic expression. It is assumed that the examiner was referring to these sections of the definition in urging that medium is only a limitation of a type of material or substance, as only these sections refer to these two terms. With regard to the prior section “a”, if Siebert’s Kerr cell OKC-1 is the means or substance regarded as the means of transmission of electromagnetic energy, then OKC-2 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007