Appeal No. 1998-2443
Application No. 08/704,956
of each. Skrgatic’s teaching of placing a transducer at the bottom of the container clearly
would have been suggestive of placing a transducer, e.g. the transducer, 1, of Oshima,
adjacent the bottom of the container so that the transducer would have been located
proximate to the wall in contact with the liquid contents.
However, while we agree with the examiner that the combination of references
would have made it obvious to place the transducer of Oshima adjacent the bottom wall of
the container, claim 21 also requires the container to have a “thin metal wall” in contact with
the liquid contents, that the EMAT be located “proximate to the thin metal wall” and that the
thin metal wall be caused to “vibrate and launch ultrasonic compressional waves.” Neither
of the references discloses a “thin metal wall.”
The examiner’s position is that a “thin metal wall” is a relative term but the examiner
recognizes that in the context of the present invention, a “thin metal wall” is interpreted to
be sufficiently thin so as to vibrate and launch compressional waves under the influence of
an EMAT in proximity thereto. The examiner then concludes that Oshima’s tank comprises
such a “thin metal wall.” The examiner is correct that a proper interpretation of a “thin metal
wall,” in the context of the instant invention, would require the wall to be sufficiently thin so
as to vibrate and launch compressional waves under the influence of an EMAT in proximity
thereto. However, contrary to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007