Appeal No. 97-0514
Application 08/345,114
he believes any of them to be separately patentable. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7).
The three references involved disclose the detection
of magnetic fields produced by electrical current flowing in
the soil (Murphy) or in a wire (Fichtenbaum and Seddick).
With respect to Murphy, appellant argues (brief, pages 6 to 7;
original emphasis):
Initially, Applicant points out that the
existing claim language of "radiation" and
"emitted radiation" clearly refers to, and
should be construed to cover, light radia-
tion in the form of photons emitted from
the surface of the device or material.
This meaning is clear from the Specifica-
tion. E.g., page 6, line 33 to page 7,
line 17. Also, this meaning is in accord
with the common meaning of "radiation" in
this context. The American Heritage Dic-
tionary, Second College Edition, for exam-
ple, defines "radiation" as "... 2. Phys-
ics. a. The emission and propagation of
waves or particles. b. The propagating
waves or particles, such as light, sound,
radiant heat, or particles, emitted by
radioactivity."
Applicant submits that the Murphy refer-
ence does not anticipate Applicant's
claimed invention. Specifically, the
Murphy reference does not disclose, as
required by Claims 1 and 12, "a radiation
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007