Appeal No. 1998-1094
Application 08/497,064
surface 4 is incorrect. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3
and 4 over Dupressoir.
Claims 1, 3 to 5 and 7 to 13 and Neff
Again, we take claim 1 as the representative claim. We
have evaluated the Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 9 to
11] and the Examiner’s position [final rejection, pages 2 to 3
and answer, pages 6 to 7]. We find that Neff does not
disclose the claimed feature of “an aperture creating an open
space entirely through said first radiation-focusing device,
said aperture being spaced from a point where said focal axis
intersects the first radiation-focusing device.” The Examiner
asserts [answer, pages 6 to 7] that “[a]lthough the reflective
surface 7 [in Neff] contains a metallic film over the aperture
4, this is incidental to the structure that is formed and
defined in the claims at hand.” We disagree. Clearly, Neff
shows a metallic web 8 and another material 6 (albeit,
optically transparent) over the asserted aperture 4. Thus,
there is no aperture having the claimed structure in Neff.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims 3 to 5 and 7 to 13 over Neff.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007