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