Appeal 2007-0465
Application 10/146,813
Appellants' argument that "Williams does not disclose a microscopic
image product that comprises a light source that produces light made of
entangled photons" (Br. 9) is just a conclusion without any reasoning.
Similarly, Appellants' argument that the statement at column 7 of Williams,
that interferometric lines are images, does not disclose a microscopic image
product (Reply Br. 5), presents no reasons. To the extent Appellants imply
that Williams does not disclose a microscopic image product because an
interferometer produces only straight lines or circles, and Williams cannot
produce complex image patterns (Reply Br. 5), the "images" in claim 1 are
not recited to be any special shape and are met by the lines in Williams.
Appellants have failed to establish that claim 1 is not anticipated.
For the reasons stated above, the anticipation rejection of claims 1-3
and 5-7 is sustained.
Claim 4
Arguments and rejection
Appellants argue (Br. 10) that claim 4 is separately patentable because
Williams does not disclose "a first set of lenses that makes a Fourier
transform of a semiconductor design pattern; and a second set of lens [sic]
that retransforms the Fourier transform to a reduced-size pattern."
In the statement of the rejection, the Examiner refers to elements 122
and 130 and column 4, lines 54-63. In the response to the arguments section
of the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner provides an extensive discussion of
Fourier domain analysis (Answer 6-7).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013