Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,987
or substance. Even assuming that Siebert’s two Kerr cells, OKC-1 and OKC-2, are made of the
same type of material, the material physically constituting OKC-1 does not physically constitute
OKC-2, and vice-versa. The cells are two separate objects or mediums, even if made of the same
material, such that once the material of OKC-1 is identified as said non-linear medium of the first
optical gate of claim 19, the material of OKC-2 cannot be later identified as said non-linear
medium of the second optical gate of the claim.
Furthermore, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary does not appear to support the
examiner’s position that a medium is a type of material or substance as he contends. The
dictionary, in pertinent part, states that a medium is,
2 : a means of effecting or conveying something: as a (1): a substance regarded as
the means of transmission of a force or effect, . . . e : material or technical means
of artistic expression.
It is assumed that the examiner was referring to these sections of the definition in urging that
medium is only a limitation of a type of material or substance, as only these sections refer to these
two terms. With regard to the prior section “a”, if Siebert’s Kerr cell OKC-1 is the means or
substance regarded as the means of transmission of electromagnetic energy, then OKC-2
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007