Appeal No. 1997-2508
Application 08/329,463
prior art, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the3
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
2(...continued)
axially spaced plurality of solenoids (Fig. 1) or an axially
spaced plurality of magnets (Fig. 3) along the exterior of a
pipe;
Kronenberg et al. (International Publication Number WO
85/03649) disclosing in Figure 8A-G magnetic elements
separated and placed around a cylindrical tube; and
Weisenbarger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,711,271) and Burns
(U.S. Patent No. 5,320,751) each providing a distinct frame
for circumferentially (not axially aligned) arrayed magnets.
Kulish (U.S. Patent No. 4,605,498), listed as a
reference cited in each of the aforementioned Weisenbarger and
Burns patents, is likewise pertinent in disclosing a distinct
frame for circumferentially arranged magnets. A copy of the
Kulish document accompanies this opinion.
These referenced documents would appear to us to be
worthy of further consideration in the event of any subsequent
prosecution before the examiner.
3In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007