Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
Claim 18 is not indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2, even though the
phrase "light
intensity" was not introduced earlier in the claim, because a
person of ordinary skill in the art would still understand the
bounds of the claim.
Although the Examiner did not point it out, claim 18
appears to contain a typographical error. It appears to
contain an extra "of" after the word "each". If so, the
phrase "of each of portion" should be changed to "of each
portion". Even with this
typographical error, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would still understand the bounds of the claim.
3. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 13
and claims 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is the
burden of the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention
by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior
art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007