Appeal No. 95-3208
Application 08/067,307
teach "detecting the light which was not scattered by the
particle" as recited in Appellants' claim 8. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 16 through
18.
Turning to Appellants' claim 1, we fail to find that the
claimed language requires that the detected light is the direct
beam of the light. Appellants' claim 1 only requires that the
detector detects the light over a given collection angle.
Appellants' claim 1 does not preclude a reading of the claim
language on a detector that detects the scattered light over a
given collection angle. We note that Fulwyler teaches in column
8, lines 58-64, that the detector detects the scattered light
over a collection angle between 0.5 and 2.0 degrees. Therefore,
we find that Fulwyler teaches all of the limitations recited in
Appellant's claim 1. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 13 through 15.
We further note that Appellants did not argue that means of
detecting as recited in Appellants' claim 1 corresponds to
structure found in Appellants' specification under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph. We are not required to raise and/or
consider such issues when Appellants have not argued them. As
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007