Appeal No. 1997-4107
Application No. 08/510,730
See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235,
169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
It is the examiner's position that the claims are
indefinite because the wavelength of radiation required by the
Bragg equation has not been specified in the specification.
Hence, the Bragg equation cannot be satisfied and the claims
are necessarily indefinite. The examiner further submits
evidence that different Bragg angles are obtained dependent on
the use of a specific target. Hence, the Bragg angle is
dependent on the specific target utilized. See Answer, pages
4 to 6. Six different targets are described, each of which
provides a different wavelength and results in a different
Bragg angle. Id. Accordingly, the omission by appellants of
the target used in the determination of the Bragg angles
results in claims which are indefinite. We disagree.
We find that the specification refers to two U. S.
Patents incorporated by reference, each of which determine the
2 values of the Bragg equation using Cu alpha radiation having
a wavelength equal to 0.1542 nanometers. See Duff, U.S.
Patent No. 5,166,339, column 12, lines 31-33 and Mayo, U.S.
Patent No. 5,189,156, column 16, line 29-30. Furthermore, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007