Appeal No. 95-2413
Application 07/936,865
"preselected" is a very broad term and, in our opinion, the
"preselected" erosion pattern can be interpreted as the actual
erosion pattern corresponding to the selected shape of the
closed-loop path. We do not read into the claim any implied
process-of-designing limitations that "preselected" means a
perfect correspondence between the intended and the actual
erosion pattern. Any continuous erosion pattern is considered
to be "expressible as a mathematical equation." For these
reasons, the rejection of independent claim 13 and dependent
claims 14, 15, and 62 is sustained. Appellants do not
separately argue "convex" versus "concave." Therefore, the
rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17, 18,
and 22 is likewise sustained.
Claims 42-44 and 60 are dependent claims reciting
non-planar targets. It would have been obvious to apply the
planar teachings of Suzuki, Sato '375, or Sato '374 to a
non-planar target as taught by Wegmann for the reasons
discussed in connection with claims 13 and 29, supra. Since
these claims depend on independent claims whose rejections
have been sustained, the rejection of claims 42-44 and 60 is
sustained.
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007