Appeal No. 96-2194
Application 08/042,292
The examiner explains the proposed modification of
Hüschelrath in view of Houskamp as follows (Answer at 4):
Hüschelrath et al. does not teach to utilize
electric sensors.
Houskamp teaches that it is known in the art to
utilize either inductive, optical or capacitive type
sensors for tracking sensors. The use of capacitive
ie. [sic, i.e.,] electrical sensors allows for
detection in corrosive environments and multiple path
detection.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrical
sensors of Houskamp to provide improved detection with
electrical type sensors.
The examiner's position appears to be that it would have been
obvious in view of Houskamp to replace Hüschelrath's means for
generating a magnetic field in body 1 (i.e., electromagnet 10 and
magnetic poles 6 and 7) with means for generating an electric
field in the body and to replace Hüschelrath's magnetic field
sensors 12 with electric field sensors. Appellant does not
contend that it would have been unobvious to combine the
teachings of these references in this manner. Instead, he
argues, inter alia, that "[t]he references do not suggest any
combination that would yield a sensing apparatus that creates and
senses at least two electric fields as required by claim 1" and
that "[b]oth references require only a single field, and
consequently do not suggest the desirability of more than one
field, electrical or magnetic" (Brief at 4). We agree with
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007