Appeal No. 97-0866
Application 07/801,248
electric field from beam 26 cannot significantly outrun the
beam itself" (specification, page 9). The examiner's
remarks that the specification is vague and indefinite (EA5)
do not try to explain why the result, the electric field
must be able to precede the ion beam, is not sufficiently
definite to define the term. In addition, appellants state
that pinching will occur at least within the range of $=0.3
to 0.8 (specification, page 9), which is another indication
of what is meant by "mildly relativistic." Accordingly,
this reason for the § 112, second paragraph, rejection is
reversed.
Appellants argue that the term "intense ion beam" is
art recognized and means a beam in which self-induced fields
are significant (Br4). Appellants note that both Winterberg
references use the term "intense" in connection with
electron and ion beams without further explanation,
indicating that the term is intrinsically clear to readers
of particle beam literature (Br4). The examiner does not
address this reasoning, but maintains that appellants have
not provided a definition. Patent disclosures are addressed
to those of ordinary skill in the art. We are persuaded by
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007