Appeal No. 2002-0122
Application No. 08/857,756
the average value in this situation and therefore no anticipation
of the claimed average angle range” (request, page 5, second full
paragraph).
The above noted argument is fatally premised on a
misconception of Ito’s disclosure. That is, the appellants seem
to believe that the minimum retardation value referred to by Ito
represents the lowermost value of an angle range for which no
uppermost value (i.e., the so called maximum retardation value
referenced by the appellants) is disclosed by patentee. This is
unquestionably incorrect. Rather, the aforementioned angles
disclosed by Ito with respect to his figure 10 embodiment relate
to the angle formed by the projected directions showing the
minimum retardation values (e.g., see lines 63-65 in column 22),
which is to say, the angle formed by directions showing
retardation value of the minimum (e.g., see Table 1 in column 29,
especially the ** footnote thereof). When patentee’s disclosure
regarding the figure 10 embodiment is properly interpreted, it is
clear that a 90 degree angle is envisioned by patentee and that
this angle fully satisfies the appealed claim 1 limitation of a
range between 60 and 120 degrees.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007