Appeal No. 1998-1814 Page 7
Application No. 08/347,814
appellants’ interpretation. Accordingly, we conclude that claim 110
is indefinite, as asserted by the examiner.
With regard to claim 144, instead of reciting that the detector
output signal is representative of wavelength stabilization means,
the claim recites “producing by a detector
. . . an output signal representative of . . . and providing for
wavelength stabilization. . . .” However, similar to claim 110, it
is not the detector that provides for wavelength stabilization, but
rather the demodulator, since claim 151, for example, requires a
separate demodulator.
The examiner further asserts that claims 143 and 177 are
unclear. Starting with claim 143 (claim 177 has similar
language) the language in question is “wherein said detector
means comprises a single detector means for producing output
signal means representative of known and unknown quantities of
the absorber species.” The examiner takes the position
(answer, page 3) that because the detector means of claim 110
produces signal output means representative of an absorber
species and wavelength stabilization means and therefore
requires two detectors, that the single detector means of
claim 143, contradicts claim 110. From our reading of claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007