Appeal 2007-0465
Application 10/146,813
"product" is the photoresist 145 which contains a "microscopic image"
consisting of the interference lines pattern 142. If Appellants intent is to
claim the system which produces the image, it seems that "a microscopic
imaging product" or "a product for producing a microscopic image" is more
accurate that a "microscopic image product." However, the Examiner's
apparent interpretation of "microscopic image product" does not account for
the structure of the "light source" which manifestly cannot be part of the
image. Although the term "microscopic image product" renders the claims
somewhat indefinite, and should be clarified, we assume for purposes of this
appeal that a "microscopic image product" is a product (device) which
produces a microscopic image.
(2)
Appellants imply that an "image" has to be a two dimensional image
because, in Williams, the "interferometer produces only straight lines or
circles" (Br. 9) and Williams "cannot produce complex image patterns"
(Reply Br. 5). However, Appellants have not said why an "image" cannot
be a straight line or circle. We interpret an "image" to be broad enough to
include just straight lines or circles. Note that Figure 1 of Williams
specifically labels the "image." Note also that the claims do not require a
product that is an image of something else, such as a mask.
(3)
Although the claim preamble must be read in context of the entire
claim, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013