Appeal No. 97-1884
Application 08/051,377
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1 through 3 and 20.
In Figure 1 of Pollard, an impeller 4 mounted on the end
of a shaft 3 is rotated at a constant angular velocity by
motor 12. Vibrations induced in shaft 3 by virtue of the
stirring action of impeller 4 are sensed by a transducer 5
mounted on the shaft. Pollard indicates that viscosity of the
material being stirred may be inferred from measurements of
shaft vibration (column 4, lines 18 through 25).
The examiner is of the opinion that the vibrations
measured by Pollard “are a measure of wobble and changes in
verticality” (Answer, page 4). Appellants argue (Brief, page
18) that Pollard has absolutely nothing to do with wobble.
Pollard indicates that properties of a material are monitored
by “using the material under test as the means of generating
the vibrations” (column 2, lines 55 through 60). Thus, we
agree with appellants that the vibrations in Pollard are not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007