Appeal No. 2000-0423
Application No. 09/016,245
source 130 to an exposure lamp (136) at a preselected time
(the time when the intensity of the lamp drifts downward[)].”
In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1,
2 and 5 through 16 is reversed because each and every
limitation of the claimed invention is not disclosed by Tung.
Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d
1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2 and
5 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007