Appeal No. 98-0250
Application No. 08/201,963
compare the thickness of the gap to the diameter of the gap
(Brief, page 10), whereas the examiner is of the opinion that
the thickness of the gap is the same dimension as the
thickness of the lens, and is in the direction of beamflow
(Answer, page 7). We are aware of the fact that appellants
may be their own lexicographer, but the use of the term
“thickness” to describe a diameter has led to confusion as to
the location of this “thickness.”
REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
In view of the foregoing, we hereby enter the following
new ground of rejection:
Claims 9 through 14, 16 through 22 and 28 through 32 are
rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
being indefinite.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 9 through
14 and 16 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007