Appeal 2007-0465
Application 10/146,813
The Examiner finds that Williams produces a microscopic image
product, not merely an interference pattern. The Examiner refers to
pattern 142 in Figure 1 and the statements that the system "images
interferometric lines" (col. 7, ll. 10-11) and that "[a]ccording to the present
system, the classical optical beam is replaced by a quantum stream of n
entangled protons" (col. 6, ll. 51-53). (Answer 5-6.) The Examiner finds
that although Williams does not mention "microscopic image," a photon is
of microscopic scale, and any image created by a particle of microscopic
size is a microscopic image product (id. at 6).
Appellants argue that the interference pattern 142 cannot be
considered an image product (Reply Br. 5). It is argued that the statement at
column 7 that interferometric lines are images does not disclose a
microscopic image product (id.). It is argued that it is well known that an
interferometer produces only straight lines or circles and Williams cannot
produce complex image patterns (id.). It is argued that the Examiner admits
that Williams does not explicitly mention a "microscopic image" and "it is
clear that there is no explicit disclosure of an image product as only
interference patterns are disclosed" (Reply Br. 6).
Claim interpretation
Proper claim interpretation necessarily precedes a determination of
patentability. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457,
43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Implicit in our review of the
Board's anticipation analysis is that the claim must first have been correctly
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013