Ex parte PUTHOFF - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-3753                                                          
          Application No. 08/109,983                                                  
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                    This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1            
          through 59.  In an Amendment After Final (paper number 17), claim           
          53 was amended.                                                             
               The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus              
          for transmitting a signal that varies as a function of time.  The           
          transmitted signal has scalar and vector potentials, but without            
          an electromagnetic field.                                                   
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1. A method of communicating information that changes as a             
          function of time from a first site to a second site comprising              
          transmitting a signal that varies as a function of time in                  
          accordance with the information from the first site to the second           
          site, the signal having scalar and vector potentials without                
          including an electromagnetic field, receiving the transmitted               
          signal at the second site, and detecting the information from the           
          signal as received at the second site.                                      
               No references were relied on by the examiner.                          
               Claims 1 through 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101               
          because allegedly the invention as disclosed is inoperative and             
          therefore lacks utility.                                                    
               Claims 1 through 59 stand rejected under the first paragraph           
          of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because allegedly the specification fails to             
          provide an enabling disclosure and, therefore, fails to                     
          adequately teach one skilled in the art how to make and/or use              
          the invention without resort to undue experimentation.                      
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007