Appeal No. 2000-1257
Application 08/861,350
claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the disclosure and the teachings of the prior art as it
would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
We have reviewed and considered the examiner’s reasons in
support of the rejection, but are not convinced that the cited
claims fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
The focus of the examiner's concern of each independent
claim on appeal is the feature at the end of each independent
claim that the value "r is the maximally permissible decrease of
the Strehl intensity due to spherical aberration." At page 3
of the answer, the examiner considers this terminology to be
subjective rather than objective and the value of "r" is set
forth in terms of a desired result. Beginning at page 4 of the
answer in the responsive arguments portion thereof, the examiner
variously considers the quoted material as not being clearly
definable, that the value of "r" may range somewhat between less
than infinity down to zero indicating that the metes and bounds
of the claimed invention would therefore not be clearly
definable, and that the above-quoted claim limitation is based
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007