Appeal No. 2006-2229
Application 10/347,069
their own disclosed invention. As stated at page 4 of appellants’
specification in paragraph [0013] “[t]he optical components that include a
region with an altered refractive index may include: a diffraction grating; a
planar diffraction grating; a concave diffraction grating; an aberration-
correcting diffraction grating; . . .” Diffraction gratings are shown in
appellants’ drawings as elements 170, 270, 370 and 570 in various figures.
Therefore, to the same extent appellants disclose diffraction gratings as
having different indices of refraction, the same may be well said of the
teachings in Tangonan.
As indicated earlier, appellants’ continued arguments in the brief and
reply brief with respect to the different meanings of substrate between
appellants’ disclosed invention and Tangonan’s teachings and showings are
misplaced first of all because appellants’ claimed invention is not
coextensive with the arguments made. Additionally, appellants appear to be
continuing to invite us to read the disclosed invention into the broadly
claimed subject matter where appellants are free to amend the claims to
exclude the teachings and showings in Tangonan. There’s no proper
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007