Ex parte PUTHOFF - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-3753                                                          
          Application No. 08/109,983                                                  
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.                     
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          and we will reverse all of the rejections.                                  
               The grounds for rejecting claims 1 through 59 under                    
          35 U.S.C.  101 are as follows (Answer, page 3):                            
                    Independent claims 1, 14, and 25 all include a                    
               recitation of transmitting a “time varying signal                      
               comprising vector and scaler [sic, scalar] potentials                  
               without including an electromagnetic field”.  It is                    
               unclear how this is done given the disclosed structure                 
               of figure 2.  Regarding independent claims 34 and 43,                  
               it is unclear how the “means for deriving a curl free                  
               vector potential” operates or how it is realized in                    
               physically operable device.  Regarding claim 57, it is                 
               unclear how the recited receiver structure for “a                      
               scaler [sic, scalar] and vector potential signal” and                  
               the “shield for electromagnetic waves” would operate.                  
                    It appears claims 1-59 recite a theoretical device                
               in which a physically realizable device is not operable                
               from what has been disclosed.                                          
               In the grounds for finding lack of enablement for claims 1             
          through 59, the examiner refers (Answer, page 4 through 6) once             
          more to claims 1, 14, 25, 34, 43 and 57, and contends that it is            
          “unclear” how the disclosed circuitry and structure accomplish              
          the objectives of the disclosed and claimed invention.  The                 
          examiner asks (Answer, page 5), “[w]hat conclusive evidence is              
          there that such a structure as disclosed in figures 4 and 5                 
                                          3                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007