Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 10
claim --the first transparent covering-- from which various
parameters are defined (eg focal length) has been eliminated."
Appellants assert (brief, page 23) that the “claims recite
changes under which the image sensor undergoes in order to
perform the stated objective.” We observe that claim 2 recites a
second transparent covering having a different thickness from the
first transparent covering, and that when the first transparent
covering is removed and replaced with the second transparent
covering, a focal length from a top of the second transparent
covering to said light receiving section is different from the
focal length from the top of the first transparent covering.
From the language of claim 2, we find that appellants have not
eliminated the first transparent covering from the claim as
asserted by the examiner, but rather that the claim recites two
transparent coverings of different thicknesses, and that
replacing the first transparent covering with the second
transparent covering results in a different focal length. With
respect to the examiner’s assertion (answer, page 14) that claim
2 is vague because the term “top” is undefined, we find the
language of claim 2 that “a focal length from a top of said
second transparent opening . . .” to clearly define the top
surface of the second transparent covering. We make similar
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007