Appeal 2007-0465
Application 10/146,813
construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested limitation.").
We see at least four claim interpretation issues with respect to claim 1:
(1) what is meant by a "microscopic image product"; (2) what is meant by
"image"; (3) whether the preamble limits the claim; and (4) whether claim 1
is an impermissible "single means" claim.
(1)
The Specification and claims state "a microscopic image product
comprising a light source that produces light that is made of entangled
photons" (Specification 5; claim 1), "the image product comprises a
lithography microscope" (Specification 6; claim 2), and "the image product
further comprises an optical imaging device for making reduced-size image"
(Specification 6; claim 3). It appears that the Specification intends the
"microscopic image product" to be the system which produces the image.
However, Appellants also argue that "there is no explicit disclosure of an
image product [in Williams] as only interference patterns are disclosed"
(Reply Br. 6), which suggests that Appellants consider the "product" to be
the actual "image" rather than the device which produces the image.
The Examiner apparently interprets "microscopic image" to modify
the term "product," where the image is the interference lines. See Answer 5
("The Examiner takes the position that Williams does produce a microscopic
image product (figure #1, item #142, column #7, lines 8-11) . . . .").
This Examiner's interpretation is a more reasonable interpretation of
"microscopic image product" than Appellants' apparent position. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013