Appeal No. 95-1783
Application 08/069,957
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to employ the multiple detectors of
Hendricks with DeMetz or Auer to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Appellants argue that neither DeMetz nor Auer teaches
the two claimed electro-acoustic transducers and that
Hendricks does not cure this deficiency [brief, page 2].
DeMetz does not teach the claimed two transducers as admitted
by the examiner. Auer teaches two electro-acoustic
transducers, but the examiner notes that one of these
transducers is for transmitting signals and one is for
receiving signals [answer, page 3]. Therefore, Auer also does
not teach two different electro-acoustic transducers for
receiving acoustic signals as recited in claim 1.
As noted above, however, the examiner relies on
Hendricks to overcome this deficiency of DeMetz and Auer.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
Hendricks’ plural transducers with DeMetz or Auer because
DeMetz has no traffic density or volume problem and because
Auer’s speed-based Doppler shift system has no need for
spatial discrimination circuitry. We agree with appellants
that the artisan would find no motivation to combine the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007