Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When reading the limitation,
“in front of said detecting pinhole” in light of Appellant’s
specification, Page 3, lines 46 through 49 and Figure 2B of
Appellant’s specification describe the position of the baffle “in
front of said detecting pinhole” as being located between the
specimen and the pinhole. We thus find the phrase, “in front of
said detecting pinhole” consistent with and in light of the
specification, would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art as being located between the specimen and the detecting
pinhole.
On the other hand as Appellant states on page 4, lines 15
through 16 and page 5, lines 1 through 2 of the Appeal Brief, the
baffles of Kino and Tanaami are located behind the pinhole or
between the detector and the detecting pinhole as shown in Figure
2C of Appellant’s specification. Tanaami shows in Figure 3 the
baffle located between the detector (camera) and pinhole (21),
and Kino shows in Figure 1 the baffle (7a) located between the
detector (eyepiece 7) and the pinhole (3). As such, we find that
neither reference teaches the limitation of being located in
front of the detecting pinhole as required in claim 1.
We next turn to the rejection of independent claim 5 also
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007