Appeal No. 97-2621
Application 08/432,442
distance between G2b and G3 that is a mistake and that the two
elements should be much farther apart and therefore the linear
projections from G2b actually would not overlap the apertured
portion of G3. The appellants’ conclusion is entirely
arbitrary, since it may well be that the shown distance
between G2b and G3 is correct and it is the other shown
dimensions in Figure 2 that are mistaken.
In any event, as we have already discussed above, it is
already erroneous to assume that the illustrated dimensions in
Figure 2 must match or correspond to the specific numbers
given from the bottom of Chen’s column 6 to the top of column
7. The specific numbers are only that of a single embodiment,
while other embodiments are described elsewhere in the
specification. For instance, from the bottom of column 7 to
the top of column 8, it is stated:
Conversely, the thickness of the G2a
should not be so small as to require a slot
width significantly less than the diameter
of the G2b aperture 56. Although the width
of the slot aperture 55 can be less than
the diameter of the beam forming aperture
56, when it is made excessively less, the
mechanical tolerance of the alignment
between the slot aperture 55 and the beam
forming aperture 56 becomes critical.
Experience has shown that with a beam
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007