Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 16
Application No. 08/504,233
The appellant contests the examiner's determinations of
the differences between Maas and claim 11. Specifically, the
appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-9) that none of the applied
prior art (including Maas) teaches (1) positioning hydrophone
mandrels at desired locations along a hose to obtain a desired
frequency; and (2) positioning hydrophone mandrels over the
inflatable hose and then partially inflating the hose so as to
provide a slip fit between the mandrels and thereafter fully
inflating the hose so as to provide a tight connection between
the hose and the hydrophone mandrels without causing
substantially any longitudinal displacement of the mandrels.
We agree with the appellant that the applied prior art
(e.g., Maas) does not teach positioning hydrophone mandrels at
desired locations along a hose to obtain a desired frequency.
In that regard, Maas is directed to a process for producing
hydrophone mandrels. We have reviewed the full disclosure of
Maas and fail to find any teaching therein of positioning
hydrophone mandrels at desired locations along a hose to
obtain a desired frequency. We have also reviewed the
disclosures of both Boxmeyer and Davis and fail to find any
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007