Appeal No. 1998-2823
Application No. 08/458,010
In addition, the examiner has withdrawn the objection to
the specification as lacking adequate written description for
the claim terminology “electromagnetic energy,” “first optical
opening,” “second optical opening,” “non-resilient material
which is transparent,” “first and second openings” and
“diffusion means.” See answer, p. 2. Thus, the only
objections to claim terminology in the final rejection which
the examiner has not withdrawn are the objections to “brittle”
(claims 32 and 40) and “energy” (claim 26). See final
rejection, p. 3 and answer, p. 4.
The answer (p. 7) also identifies the claim terminology
“energy detector,” “first position,” “received energy,”
“energy
conducting passage,” “energy conducting member,” “insulation
means” and “replaceable elements” as lacking antecedent basis.
It is the examiner’s position that the original
disclosure of zinc selenide as a suitable glass-like material
for the window 22 (specification, p. 5) does not provide
support for the limitation a “window formed of a brittle
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007