Appeal 2007-0465
Application 10/146,813
1983). That is, a single means claim is unpatentable under § 112, ¶ 1,
because it reads on subject matter for which the specification is not enabling.
Claim 1 requires only "a light source that produces light that is made
of entangled photons." This is a means-plus-function limitation because no
structure is recited that would perform the function of "produces light that is
made of entangled photons"; the term "source" is equivalent to a "means"
because it does not recite any structure. The "light source" is not part of a
combination. Claim 1 is interpreted to be an improper single means claim.
Analysis
Appellants do not argue any of claims 2, 3, or 5-7 separately. Thus,
claims 2, 3, and 5-7 stand or fall with the rejection of claim 1.
Williams discloses a device that can image lines of a size of 50 nm
into photoresist (col. 7, ll. 30-32). Quantum lithography allows writing
evenly spaced lines with sub-wavelength resolution. The patterned
photoresist is a "product" (a thing) having lines which are a "microscopic
image." Williams also discloses a "product" (a structure) that produces a
"microscopic image," i.e., a "microscopic image product" as we interpret the
term for this appeal. The fact that the image in Figure 1 consists only of
lines does not preclude it from being an "image." "Image" does not require
an arbitrary two-dimensional image, nor an image of something else.
Elements 99 and 100 in Williams are a "light source that produces
light that is made of entangled photons." Thus, Williams discloses all of the
limitations of claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013