Appeal No. 2006-2314 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/856,225
appellants make clear that the claims are not intended to be
limited by the illustrative embodiments set forth in the
specification. Thus, for reasons set forth by the examiner in
the answer (pages 5 and 6), appellants’ argument is unpersuasive
because representative claim 1 does not preclude removal of
material on the outside surface of the target media. When the
claim does not recite allegedly distinguishable features,
“appellant[s] cannot rely on them to establish patentability.”
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-1351, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
For similar reasons, appellants’ arguments presented at
pages 8 and 9 of the brief are unpersuasive. This is because
representative claim 1 does not preclude use of a base for the
target media and/or cutting the target media. Nor does
representative claim 1 require using a laser, much less focusing
such a laser at a particular point. Moreover, representative
claim 1 is not limited to the formation of dispersed voids as
illustrated in appellants’ drawing figure 2 and argued by
appellants as a patentable difference. Nor does representative
claim 1 require light sharing between adjacent scintillators, as
argued. Consequently, appellants’ contentions set forth in the
brief fail to establish a patentably distinguishing feature that
is found in representative claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007