InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,304.72
(
0.70%
)
US TECH 100
18,318.00
(
0.95%
)
Dow Jones
39,069.59
(
0.01%
)
Brent Oil
81.97
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
68,849.36
(
0.46%
)
Post# of 45771
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

d4diddy

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 8
Posts 3893
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 06/28/2005

d4diddy

Re: Crow3 post# 6382

Thursday, 12/22/2005 8:06:09 PM

Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:06:09 PM

Post# of 45771
Crow, good question, I don't think so.

The examiner stated "at least one meter" was acceptable as the amended claims currently stand.

When you read the actual patent details it states 1-2 meters but with a lot of wiggle room depending on various factors.

I don't think they give any definite correlation between stand-off, integration time, target concentrations... etc. That'd be hard to do without getting specific.

Not 100% sure though, my attention has been on the claims. I haven't read the detailed description very carefully.
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up