Appeal No. 1997-3528
Application No. 08/230,659
forming an index grating’ added to independent claim 11.” 2
(Examiner’s answer, page 4.) Specifically, the examiner
alleges:
The specification, while supporting the flood
exposure and the interferometric exposure occurring
with either taking place before the other, does not
contain support for the language added to the claim,
particularly when the first exposure is
interferometric as embraced by claim 13, while being
exposed to an external applied field as taught in
the specification at page 5 in lines 5-7. The prior
art clearly establishes that an interferometric
exposure is necessary for grating formation and a
two beam exposure precedes the formation of the
grating and that application of a field during this
exposure results in grating formation. [Examiner’s
answer, p. 4.]
According to the examiner, the insertion of the language into
claim 11 introduces “new matter.” (Examiner’s answer, page
2.) Thus, the examiner’s rejection appears to be based on the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
2The recitation “to activate the article without forming
an index grating” was inserted into claim 11, step (i),
through an amendment filed February 9, 1995. (Paper 7.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007