Appeal No. 1998-1094
Application 08/497,064
find that APA does not cure the deficiency noted above in the
discussion of claim 1 and Dupressoir under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
That is, APA does not show or suggest the modification to meet
the claimed limitation 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.” Therefore,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5 to 20
over Dupressoir and APA.
Claim 14
This claim is rejected as being obvious over Neff. By
virtue of its dependence on claim 1, it contains, besides
other limitations, the claimed limitation 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.” We noted above that Neff does not have that feature.
The Examiner has not presented any additional evidence which
would cure that deficiency.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007