Appeal No. 2001-2065
Application 09/124,871
portion is located adjacent to the signal receiving element of
the first target area (this is specified in dependent claim 2)
or has a size substantially equal to the magnitude of the
first size area (this is recited in dependent claim 3).
Accordingly, claim 1 broadly reads on structures which solve
the accuracy problem and structures which do not (e.g., where
the signal sensing portion has a size equal to the magnitude
of the first area size, but is not located adjacent the signal
receiving element of the first target area). Structures which
do not solve the accuracy problem are nonetheless still
operative.
The issue with respect to claim 1 is whether it would
have been obvious to divide the signal receiving element under
a large target area in Allen into two (or more) signal
receiving elements. It need not be shown that the dividing
solves any accuracy problem because claim 1 reads on structure
which does not solve the problem. See In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1015, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972) ("Claims
which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are
unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject
matter.").
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007