Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
art in general. It is well taken that it is a given in the art
that according to appellant’s consideration of the prior art that
180E phase-shift is the desirable norm in the art to achieve
the type of non-blurring registration for the desired features.
The optical version in Smith’s figure 7 clearly shows that this
relative phase-shifting occurs by different thicknesses of the
underlying transparent quartz substrate, which is the same
approach taken by appellant in the disclosed invention as well
as the same approach recognized by appellant himself in his
own discussion of the prior art in the earlier pages of the
specification. Thus, as to this feature, it recites nothing
that the art does not recognize anyway.
The claimed second region of claim 7 corresponds to the
substance of claim 1. Therefore, it is met to the same extent
we have considered claim 1 to have been anticipated by Pease.
Moreover, the claimed first region of claim 7 would therefore
by inference correspond to the transparent underlying substrate
portion, which feature is taught to be common in both references.
As noted earlier with respect to our discussion of claim 2, the
subject matter of claim 8 is also met for the same reason.
Turning to the feature recited in claims 9 and 10, the
broadly defined “approximate" range in each of these claims is
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007