Appeal No. 96-1637
Application 08/130,940
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second
Paragraph
It is the examiner’s position that the language in the
preamble of claim 12 "for use in a sea ice environment on a
surface of said ice” is indefinite because it does not set out a
system disposed on a sea ice surface.
We will not sustain this rejection. It is apparent from
language within the body of claim 12 that the invention is
disposed
on a sea ice surface. That language requires a grounded antenna
wire deployed upon, extending along and in contact with the sea
ice surface.
The Rejection of claims 1-14
under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Hine
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellants, we have
concluded that this rejection should not be sustained. We agree
in general with the comments made by appellants in their brief.
Common to independent claims 1 and 12-14, the only
independent claims, is the requirement that one or more antenna
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007