Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
teaches a controller (computer) having a conventional structure
embraced by those corresponding to the moving means recited in
claim 19.
Finally, we note that claim 37, as written, does not specify
the structure and location of the claimed dust bin. Moreover, as
found by the examiner(the Answer, page 5), Gartner teaches a
deposition chamber for collecting ultrafine particles. See also
column 8, lines 7-12. That is, the deposition chamber taught by
Gartner provides the same or similar function as the claimed dust
bin, i.e., collecting ultrafine particles. Thus, it is
reasonable for the examiner to conclude that the claimed dust bin
embraces the chamber taught by Gartner. The appellant does not
refer to any claimed structural feature that would distinguish
the claimed dust bin from the chamber taught by Gartner.
With respect to claims 29, 31 and 33, the appellant
separately argues that Gartner does not teach the claimed
functionally defined laser. See the Brief, page 8. As found by
the examiner (the Answer, page 6), however, Gartner teaches the
same conventional laser, e.g., NdYAG laser, described at page 4,
lines 30-32, of the appellant’s specification. Thus, it is
reasonable to shift the burden to the appellant to show that the
lasers described in Gartner do not possess the claimed function.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007