Appeal No. 96-2953
Application 08/258,565
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6,
8, 9 and 26 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Barber, Appellants argue:
The Examiner has ignored the specifically
recited sizes and distances and various
interrelationships and angles in the case
of claim 6 by merely stating:
“Inherently the condenser in
Figure 1 can be of any size and
the detector in Fig. 2 can be at
any distance.” (Emphasis added)
While the Examiner is clearly correct
in that the condenser can be of any size
and the detector can be at any distance,
the present specification discloses
particular [sic] advantages which occur
when the sizes and distances and
interrelationships are chosen in accordance
with the recited limitations of the
rejected claims. (Emphasis added, brief at
page 13.)
Looking at the claims we see the following recited
limitations of the rejected claims: “said condenser lens
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007