Appeal No. 1998-0437
Application No. 08/603,523
range of substrates and finger numbers than Satoh does not
mean that those chosen by Satoh fail to render the claims as
being anticipated. We agree. Appellant’s argument overlooks
the fact that the fixed number in Satoh is within the
disclosed and claimed range.
Lastly, appellant argues (Brief, page 13) that Satoh’s
invention would yield fewer than 50 reflective elements.
Appellant has not stated that this value of N would still not
g1
be within the range (34 # N # 78) of appellant’s invention as
g1
calculated by the examiner (Answer, page 6). Therefore, with
respect to the device claims, we agree with the examiner’s
rationale for rejecting the claims.
In summary, the rejection of apparatus claims 1-4, 6, 8,
9, 16, and 18-20 is sustained. The rejection of method claims
10, 12, 13, and 15 is reversed because the examiner has not
made a showing that the method steps of these claims read on
Satoh.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claim 13 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. The decision
of the examiner rejecting apparatus claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 16,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007