Appeal No. 1997-1560
Application 08/257,813
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner indicates (Answer, page 4) that in “[C]laim 18,
lines 5-6 ‘said method for each said beam comprising’ is vague
and indefinite as to what the method for each said beam is.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that “[t]he phrase reads:
‘said method for each said beam’ and refers to the ‘method’
cited in line 1, and to the ‘one or more illumination beams’
in line 6, and, quite evidently, means that the later-recited
steps of ‘focusing’, ‘providing’, ‘defocusing’ etc. are to be
understood as performed on each (all) of the beams.” We agree
with appellants’ argument that the method steps that follow
the questioned phrase are performed on “each said beam.”
Thus, the indefiniteness rejection is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007