Appeal No. 2006-3241
Application No. 10/834,332
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art. Id.
The examiner lists terms (Answer at 4) appearing in claim 1 that underlie the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph. In our view, the rejection fails to
show that any of the recitations, except one, render the claims indefinite. The rejection
and underlying arguments do not demonstrate that appellant=s position, as set forth in
the briefs, fails to show that the artisan would have understood the metes and bounds of
the bulk of the recited functional terms and words of degree.
However, as further explained in material bridging pages 9 and 10 of the Answer,
the examiner submits that because all electromagnetic radiation is fairly described by a
wavelength and by an energy, the recitation of Aor other radiation@ in claim 1 creates
indefiniteness as to Awhat scope of exclusion is created by the claim.@
Instant claim 1 recites an essentially planar detector of Aelectromagnetic or other
radiation. . . .@ We do not find any direct response to the examiner=s position by
appellant in the briefs. However, in the Reply Brief (at 4), appellant contends that Asuch
radiation can be of any wavelength withing [sic; within] a very wide range of
wavelengths from about 10-6 cm to about 10-1 cm. . . .@
However, the range of wavelengths from about 10-6 cm to about 10-1 cm is well
within the electromagnetic spectrum. See electromagnetic radiation, (2007), in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013