Appeal No. 1999-0236
Application 08/624,173
examiner's action is an element of the examiner's performance
plan.
Claim 6 interpretation
Claim 6 is drafted in mean-plus-function format as
permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in stating that "[c]laim 6 the
sole claim at issue does not recite [']at least two laser
diodes'" (EA7). Appellant argues (RBr4) that the "means for
illuminating a singular point within a field of view" (the
"illumination means") must be interpreted in light of the
structure disclosed in the specification to include at least
"a pair of laser diodes 34 . . . that . . . produce respective
beams that converge inward to intersect at a point"
(specification, p. 6, lines 16-17). We agree with this
interpretation. Thus, although the Examiner is correct that
claim 6 does not literally recite two laser diodes, Appellant
is correct that the "illumination means" must be construed to
cover two laser diodes and equivalents thereof. Nevertheless,
for purposes of discussion, we rely on claim 1.
Obviousness
- 11 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007