Appeal No. 95-0953
Application 07/976,328
cavity in element 26) in Dufresne, the transducer in Dufresne
is "within the acoustic pathway and positioned within the same
acoustic pathway as employed for acoustic auscultation" in the
same sense as appellant's transducer is within the acoustic
pathway. Although the transducer 42 and the opening of 44 in
Dufresne are slightly offset, appellant's openings 39 are also
slightly offset from the transducer. It may be easier to
visualize the explanation by considering if appellant's
mounting 35 was located along the vertical centerline in
figure 4 instead of in the angularly disposed stem as shown.
Then the transducer is centered at the top of the chamber 24
and the openings 39 are immediately adjacent to the transducer
as in Dufresne.
Appellant argues that the term "within" to describe the
transducer location patentably distinguishes from Dufresne's
description of "along" to describe the location (Brief,
page 6). In our opinion, the transducer in Dufresne is shown
within the acoustic pathway in the same sense as appellant's
invention because the mounting holding the transducer is
within the acoustic pathway. The term "along" is not
controlling. Thus, appellant's arguments are not persuasive.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007