Appeal No. 2001-1936
Application 09/049,478
being anticipated by Matsui. To this reference the examiner adds
in the alternative Maeda or Yamamoto as to claims 3, 7 and 13.
Rather than repeat the position of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claim 7 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, we reverse this rejection. The
mere fact that claim 7 recites an apparatus element does not
necessarily render this claim indefinite or that its scope is
indeterminable by the artisan even though its parent independent
claim recites a method. The initial clause in the body of method
independent claim 6 recites a positioning feature with respect to
"an objective lens." This same lens is referred to as "the
objective lens" in the next listed step. It is this or "the
objective lens" cited in claim 6 that is further defined in
dependent claim 7 as being an aspherical two-group objective
lens. There is no ambiguity or indefiniteness apparent to us
since dependent claim 7 further restricts the subject matter of
its independent claim 6. We note also that the artisan would
readily understand the nature of the features recited in claim 7
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007