Interference No. 104,649
Page No. 32
In response to Zhou's contentions, Keagy notes that Zhou's witness, Professor Neifeld
has testified that the phrase "reflected through internal reflection" is a fundamental principle in
the optical sciences and has a meaning that is well understood by ordinary practitioners. (Paper
No. 35, p. 23). Moreover, Keagy argues that the specification contains only two passages where
the term "refracted" was used in place of "reflected" and that these two instances are "clear
typographical errors." (Paper No. 35, p. 24).
Both parties agree that one skilled in the art would understand the principle of reflected
versus refracted light. Moreover, the prior art of record in this interference amply demonstrates
how light is bounced off of a surface using total internal reflection. (See, ZX 2012, Sibbald '586,
Figures 2, 3 and 5 and ZX 2008, Chen '694, Figure 7A and 713). Keagy's depiction and
description of Figures 2, 5, 7A and 7B are consistent with the total internal reflection
terminology used in Keagy';s claims. Accordingly, Zhou has failed to demonstrate that Keagy
has unmistakably and deliberately defined the phrase "reflected through total internal reflection"
in a manner that is contrary to its ordinary meaning.
2. Zhou has Failed to Prove that Keagy's Corresponding Claims Lack
Adequate Written Description
Zhou argues that Keagy's corresponding claims lack a sufficient written description under
35 U.S.C. § 112, 1 st paragraph. Specifically, Zhou contends that one skilled in the art reading
Keagy's claims, specification and the prosecution of Keagy's '098 grandparent application would
conclude that Keagy did not describe a system in which a portion of the illumination incident at
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007