Appeal No. 95-3753
Application No. 08/109,983
show that the specification does not enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
invention. Appellant respectfully contends that the
disclosed embodiments are clearly shown and one of
ordinary skill would be able to make and use the
invention from the disclosure.
In summary, appellant argues (Brief, pages 24 and 25) that:
In essence, these rejections question whether the
disclosed structure will work to produce the desired
result. Basically, the Examiner questions whether it
is possible to produce vector and scalar potentials
without producing an electromagnetic field. The
Examiner has produced no evidence to show such a result
cannot be produced. Appellant has shown that the prior
art Gelinas patents disclose the generation of a curl-
free signal including vector and scalar potentials with
a electric field. Appellant has modified the Gelinas
structure by eliminating the electric field associated
therewith. The electric field is eliminated by very
conventional structures, such as plates in close
proximity to a coil formed as a solenoid or toroid, and
by proper excitation of the plates and coil. In the
disclosed embodiments, the voltage applied to the
plates and the current applied to the coil are adjusted
to eliminate the electric field which was produced in
the prior art Gelinas structure. Hence, the present
invention works on recognized principles of science and
there is no evidence to the contrary . . . Appellant
has clearly shown there is an adequate disclosure in
the specification and drawings to enable one of
ordinary skill to make and use the invention. The
Examiner has failed to meet the burden of proof
required for rejections under 35 USC 101 or 35 USC 112,
paragraph 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007