Ex parte SLINKER et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 97-0866                                                          
          Application 07/801,248                                                      

               Winterberg, Focusing of an Intense Relativistic                        
               Electron Beam by a Hollow Conical Laser Beam,                          
               Z. Naturforsch, 30a, 1975, pages 976-980 (hereinafter                  
               Winterberg (1975)).                                                    
               Winterberg, Super-ion-beam accelerator for the ignition                
               of thermonuclear reactions, J. Plasma Physics, 1980,                   
               vol. 24, part 1, pages 1-14 (hereinafter                               
               Winterberg (1980)).                                                    
               Miller et al. (Miller), Observation of Plasma                          
               Wake-Field Effects during High-Current Relativistic                    
               Electron Beam Transport, Physical Review Letters,                      
               September 23, 1991, vol. 67, no. 13, pages 1747-1750.                  

               Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                      
          second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to                        
          particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject                     
          matter which appellants regard as their invention.  The                     
          examiner states that it is unclear what constitutes a                       
          "mildly-relativistic beam" or an "intense ion beam"                         
          (Examiner's Answer, page 3).                                                
               Claims 1-4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                      
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Linlor or, in the                          
          alternative, under § 103 as being unpatentable over Linlor                  
          and Ashkin.                                                                 
               Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                    
          being unpatentable over Linlor, Ashkin, and Miller.  Miller                 

                                        - 3 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007