Appeal No. 1998-1524 Page 5
Application No. 08/355,926
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the3
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (final rejection, p. 2) that
claims 11 and 14 were indefinite because there was an
3We note that claims 3, 4 and 10 may contain the
following informalities. In claim 3, it appears to us that
the recited structure (i.e., the 2x1 coupler) is part of the
"means for applying light simultaneously" and not part of "the
discrimator means." In claim 4, it appears to us that the
recited structure (i.e., the wavelength-division-multiplexer)
is part of the "means for applying light simultaneously" and
not additional structure. In claim 10, it appears to us that
the term "respectively" may be misleading in that the first
listed wavelength (i.e., 690 nm) is not the first wavelength
recited in claim 1 since the wavelength of 690 nm does not
measure the lower temperature range, but instead measures the
higher temperature range. The appellants and the examiner are
encouraged to address these informalities.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007