Appeal No. 1996-1876
Application No. 08/344,663
“wherein” clause of appealed claim 1 defining the optical
parameter D is considered as merely setting forth a future
intended use of the optical information recording medium with
respect to a particular “reading laser”, the language of the
rejected appealed claims, so construed, would not
differentiate appellants’ recording medium from the recording
medium described or suggested by Oba. In effect, Oba’s
recording medium would not undergo a metamorphosis to a new
recording medium simply by labeling its container with
instructions that it should be used with certain lasers having
wavelengths that would satisfy the optical parameter formula
in the “wherein” clause of the appealed claims. Compare In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007