Appeal No. 2006-1820
Application No. 08/889,440
to Misaka, at Figures 1, 2, 3b, 4, and 5, and to column 1, lines 35-68, column 2, lines 29-34, and
49-59, column 3, lines 16-68, and column 4, lines 50-65; or to Baumann at page 4.4.1 and Figure
1. With regard to this information which can include a position of a corresponding emission
source, a temperature, a chemical composition of the particle, a region, a physical condition, a
velocity of each atom forming the particle, and a direction, the examiner points to Misaka, at
Figures 1, 2, and 5, and the abstract, as well as column 2, lines 29-34 and 49-64, column 3, lines
3-68, and column 4, lines 1-6; or to Baumann, identifying the temperature noted in Figure 6 and
noting that this is “inherent” at page 4.4.1.
With regard to the claimed “particle motion computing unit…,” the examiner again
asserts that this is “inherent” in particle simulators such as Monte Carlo simulators; and points to
the abstract, Figures 1 and 2, and column 2, lines 49-64, column 3, lines 3-68, and column 4,
lines 1-6 of Misaka, or page 4.4.1 of Baumann.
With regard to the claim limitation of “for each adsorbate particle, the kinetic condition
setting unit sets a region indicating a position of the corresponding emission source,” the
examiner points to Figure 1, element 15, and Figures 2, 7, 8b, and 10 of Misaka, or Figure 1 of
Baumann.
With regard to the claim limitation of “the particle motion computing unit generates each
adsorbate particle in accordance with the position of the corresponding emission source,” the
examiner points to Figure 1, element 15, of Misaka or Figure 1 of Baumann, finding such
limitation “inherent.”
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007