Appeal No. 96-2546
Application No. 08/001,825
final rejection, designated as paper number 9), it is apparent
that Fenwick was applied for the sole purpose of meeting the
claimed limitations relating to the particular wavelength
separation between the loop probes and the particular
transmission lime length between connection points. However,
we can find no teaching in Fenwick relating to the comparison
of signals to produce an indication of surface wave direction
of travel which we found lacking in our earlier discussion of
the Lee reference. Accordingly, since the teachings of
Fenwick do not cure the innate deficiencies of Lee, it is our
view that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claims 1-15. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1-15.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007