Appeal No. 96-0107
Application 08/026,797
of "substantially increase" in the claims does not render them
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, since the
phrase does not stand in a vacuum but must be read in light of
the specification, and when so read, one skilled in the art can
determine the scope of the claimed invention).
To the extent that the examiner interprets the claims as
reciting that the openings provided in the layer of dielectric
material "cover" another element of the invention, the claims
recite the additional limitation that the openings are aligned
with the holes in the microchannel plate. Therefore, one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the
openings provided in the layer of dielectric material are
coextensive with the holes in the microchannel plate.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for the additional reason that
(Answer, p.4):
. . . claim 12 recites "[A] method for
improving the spatial resolution of proximity
focused image intensifiers", the rest of
claim 12, along with claims 13-20 recite
steps for manufacturing the device. It is
unclear how the steps for making the device
would improve the spatial resolution of the
proximity focused image.
We disagree. One of ordinary skill in the art reading
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007