Appeal No. 1998-1661
Application No. 08/409,244
While the examiner is correct in noting that it is the
gain media that are actually pumped, rather than the MO or the
PA which are pumped, we do not find that such a minor
inaccuracy causes the claim to be of such indefiniteness,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, that
the skilled artisan would not understand what constitutes the
metes and bounds of the instant claimed invention. As
explained by appellants, and we agree, the skilled artisan in
the environment of laser technology would understand that the
pumping of structure such as the MO or the PA would, in
actuality, have no meaning and that the recitation of the MO
being “pumped” and of the PA being “pumped” really is a
recitation of the gain media within the MO or PA being
“pumped.” So, while the claim language is not as precise as
it could be, in view of the artisan’s knowledge, we cannot say
that the instant claim language runs afoul of 35 U.S.C. § 112
in failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what
applicants consider to be their invention.
The examiner next complains that the “structure-plus-
function” language on line 3 and on line 6 of claim 1 is “not
in proper means-plus-function format.” We are aware of no
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007