Ex parte SCHMIDT - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-0894                                                          
          Application 08/069,931                                                      



               Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:                            
               1.  A measurement device for producing an electrical                   
          measurement signal from an object without contacting the object             
          physically, said measurement device comprising a one-piece                  
          injection molded magnetizable plastic part, said plastic part               
          including a magnetizable plastic coil body, and at least one coil           
          arranged on the magnetizable plastic coil body and through which            
          an electric current flows during production of the electrical               
          measurement signal.                                                         

               The following references are relied on by the examiner:                
          Tomczak et al. (Tomczak)      4,024,484           May  17, 1977             
          Anderson                      4,256,986           Mar. 17, 1981             
          Mueller et al. (Mueller)      5,239,204           Aug. 24, 1993             
                                                  (filed Feb. 5, 1991)                
               Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the            
          collective teachings of Tomczak in view of Mueller and Anderson.            
               Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the              
          examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the             
          respective details thereof.                                                 


                                       OPINION                                        
               As embellished here, we sustain the prior art rejection of             
          all claims on appeal for the reasons generally set forth by the             
          examiner in the statement of the rejection at page 3 of the                 
          answer.                                                                     
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007