Appeal No. 96-2528
Application 08/011,202
Although we agree in principle with the basic positions
set forth by appellants at page 6 of the brief that some of
the examiner’s reasoning appears to do violence to the plain
language of the claims especially interpreted in light of the
specification, this is not dispositive.
The bulk of claim 1 is consistent with the recitation at
the latter half of page 2 of the specification as filed and
the first line of page 3, which portion is the summary of the
invention in the specification, as well as the discussion
beginning at the bottom of page 5 through page 8. The
specification, however, confirms some of the concerns raised
by the examiner as well
as controverts an assertion made by appellants at page 6 of
the brief.
On its face, reading claim 1 alone, it would appear that
the language at line 11 of the claim 1 reproduced in the brief
relating to “said channel regions” at the end of that line
should have been more accurately stated to say “said elemental
channel regions” since there are plural regions recited.
However, according to the disclosure it is not the elemental
channel
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007