Appeal No. 93-2518
Application 07/696,059
examiner. These considerations lead us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejections of claims 1-29 should not be sustained.
Our reasons for this determination follow.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 8-12, 14,
16-18, 22, 23 and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Thompson or Zimmerman in view of Morrison, we agree with the
examiner that:
...Thompson and Zimmerman, Jr. ...each
discloses a method and apparatus for
geophysical prospecting of a subsurface
region by generating acoustic energy in the
subsurface region and detecting, at a remote
surface region, the electromagnetic energy
that is formed by a conversion of the
acoustic energy to electromagnetic energy at
a porous interface. [examiner’s answer at
page 5]
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 that an electric
field is generated to penetrate a preselected region to a depth
of interest and later converted to a seismic wave, the examiner
relies on the following teaching of Morrison:
When an axial electric field is impressed on
a fluid electrolyte in a fine capillary tube
and the flow is restricted, a pressure
difference appears between the ends of the
tube. Conversely, when an axial pressure
gradient is impressed on the fluid and the
electrical current is restricted, an
electrical potential difference appears. In
the first of these effects a conversion of
electrical into pumping power occurs. (page
2111, Col. 1) (Emphasis added).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007