Appeal No. 95-2640
Application No. 07/949,289
through 16, 18 and 19, dependent from claim 12, also cannot be
anticipated by Stoudenheimer.
With regard to the obviousness rejections of claims 17
and 20 through 23, the references to Santilli and Wang are
relied upon for the teachings of a rim thickness of about 0.2
mm and for a target being a charge-transfer device,
respectively. Without ruling on the specifics of these
references vis á vis the claimed subject matter, clearly, the
rejections rely on Stoudenheimer as the principal reference
for a teaching of the shutter electrode means having the
characteristics set forth in independent claim 12. Since we
find, for the reasons supra, that Stoudenheimer is lacking in
this respect and it is clear that neither Santilli nor Wang
provide for this deficiency, we will not sustain the
rejections of claims 17 and 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
We have not sustained any of the rejections of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007