Appeal No. 95-2640
Application No. 07/949,289
obviousness, the examiner cites Stoudenheimer and Santilli
with regard to claim 17 and Stoudenheimer and Wang with regard
to claims 20 through 23.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 12 through 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we will not sustain
this rejection.
The examiner holds the claims to be indefinite because
“it is unclear as to what amount of ‘minimal thickness’ is
necessary” to achieve the results recited in independent claim
12. We find no indefiniteness here as the specification
states, at page 3, lines 8-10:
Ideally, the shutter electrode should have a thickness
which is substantially equal to zero. Since this is
impossible in practice, it is given a minimal
thickness
(for example less than 0.2 mm) at the rim of the central
aperture...
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007