Appeal No. 96-1615
Application 08/249,650
inherent has been addressed by appellants in the submission of
the two declarations by declarant Parham.
Again, at page 6 of the Answer, the examiner asserts that
the claims generally are given little weight because they do
not differentiate from the reference structurally. This
rationale is additionally developed in the responsive
arguments portion of the answer in an effort to force in some
way appellants to structurally recite the basis for the
functional recitations of the claims on appeal. Without
providing any other evidence as to this rejection or
persuasive line of reasoning, the examiner asserts that the
wider claimed window of transmittance of about 400-770 nm
would have been clearly a consequence of the suggested
construction [of Martin, we presume] well within ordinary
experimentation to the artisan. This is purely speculative
and conclusory.
The "about" language of the independent claims on appeal
aptly describes the features disclosed in the written
description portion as well as the drawings as originally
filed, particularly Figures 3 and 4. The examiner cannot
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007