Appeal No. 2000-0700
Application No. 08/453,320
invention as recited in the language of claim 1. Furthermore, from our review of the
other prior art references applied by the examiner, and since the examiner has not
identified any correspondence between the prior art references and the language of
claim 1, we find that the applied prior art similarly does not teach the invention as
recited in claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or its dependent
claims 2-5 and 7-11under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Independent claims 12, 13 16, 17, and 18
contain similar limitations concerning the temporal and spatial interaction with the
control of the temporal phase and delay of one of the pulses/wavefronts as argued by
appellant at pages 10-12 of the brief. We agree with appellant and furthermore, the
examiner has not addressed these limitations or responded to appellant’s arguments
thereto. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 and
their dependent claims.
With respect to claim 23, appellant argues that this claim is directed to a
broadened form of the other claims.
Appellant relies on the claim language “simultaneously” in the context of the
other limitations. Appellant argues that in this manner, he is broadly claiming the time-
and phase-based addressing of a volume of radiation memory. (See brief at page 13.)
We disagree with appellant. We find insufficient support in the express language of
claim 23 to support appellant’s argument concerning time- and phase-based limitations
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007