Appeal No. 2000-1862
Application 08/834,061
does not disclose whether that amount of erbium doping of a sol-gel silica glass monolith
exhibits a spectral feature in the range from 220nm to about 300nm as required by appealed
claim 3, which range would overlap with if not be encompassed by the term “far UV range” in
appealed claim 37 as we have interpreted this term above, the reference does disclose spectral
features at 525nm, 550nm and 660 nm in Fig. 1(a) (pages 236-37). We find that the “exemplary
emission spectrum for erbium doped silica” in specification FIG. 4 (page 13) appears to show
similar spectral features in the 500nm to 700nm range as Xu Fig. 1(a), particularly at 521nm
(page 16. lines 3-9). We note that appealed claim 3 provides for additional spectral features “to
about 700nm.” Thus, on this record, we find that the examiner has reasonably found that the
erbium doped sol-gel silica glass monoliths of Xu inherently exhibit a spectral feature in the “far
UV range,” thus anticipating the limitations of the appealed claims.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of anticipation found in Xu with appellant’s countervailing evidence of and
argument for no anticipation in fact and find that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed
claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 9 through 15 and 37 are anticipated as a matter of fact under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
this appealed claim before the examiner.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007