Appeal No. 2000-1257
Application 08/861,350
and 0.01. Even though the values of "r" in independent claims
22 and 23 are specifically recited, the even more general
recitation in independent claim 11 is not indefinite or fatal in
our view since the artisan clearly understands the generalized
meaning of the Strehl intensity term to exist from zero to 1. We
therefore find that the value of "r" set forth at the end of
independent claim 1 on appeal as being the maximally permissible
decrease of Strehl intensity due to spherical aberration is set
forth with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity
when read in light of the disclosed invention and the teachings
of the prior art as they would be done by the artisan.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 11-14 and 17-23 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the rejection of the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the examiner makes note of Figure 6(a) of
Nishiuchi and the corresponding teachings at column 6 thereof by
asserting that the stack thickness mentioned there meets the
distance of the equation of the claims on appeal. The examiner
also considers the Strehl intensity limitation at the end of
these claims to have been inherently met by this reference.
Our study of Nishiuchi leads us to agree with appellants'
observation at the bottom of page 13 of the brief:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007