Appeal No. 2003-1486
Application No. 09/152,016
21, filed August 5, 2002) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 24, filed
January 21, 2003) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse.
The examiner contends (Answer, pages 3-4) that
[t]he recitation that light is not focussed renders the
term "fully" [in the phrase "fully illuminated"]
indefinite. Figures 1 and 3 appear to show a lens
integrated with the detector package. If no lens is
integrated with the detector package, there is no
physical basis for the phantom rays 203 in figure 3,
and the corresponding term "fully."
The examiner explains (Answer, page 8) that he is reading "fully
illuminated" in the last paragraph of claim 4 as meaning that the
detector "receive[s] 'all illumination' or the 'total
illumination' or the 'full illumination.'" He continues,
"Clearly, all of the diffused light is not incident on the
detector, and it is not fully illuminated by the diffused light."
However, that the detector is "fully illuminated" merely requires
that every portion of the detector be illuminated, not that all
of the light be incident on the detector. A small fraction of
the light could fully illuminate the detector. Accordingly, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007