Appeal No. 98-0250
Application No. 08/201,963
make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim
language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ
292, 295 (CCPA 1962). In claims 9 and 16, a “conic frustrum”
is not possible if the top gate diameter is “at least as
large” as the bottom gate diameter. A “conic frustrum” can
only be created if one diameter is larger than the other
diameter. In claim 9, how can a “cavity region” be “selected
from the group consisting of”? What are the metes and bounds
of such a “cavity region”? In the last line of claim 16, it
is not clear what the phrase “and at most” means in light of
the confusion concerning the relative diameters of the top and
the bottom gate diameters. In claim 16, it is not clear
whether the “first” lens electrode and the “at least one lens
electrode” are the same lens electrode. If the two phrases
are not referring to the same lens electrode, then it appears
that the disclosure does not support three lens electrodes.
Claims 18, 28 and 32 state that the thickness of the lens in
the direction of beamflow is about that of the “thickness” of
the gap of the lens. On the other hand, the disclosure
(specification, pages 14 and 18) compares the thickness of the
lens with the diameter of the gap in the lens. Appellants
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007