Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 17
Application No. 08/504,233
teaching which would have suggested positioning hydrophone
mandrels at desired locations along a hose to obtain a desired
frequency.
Additionally, we agree with the appellant that the
applied prior art (e.g., Maas) does not teach 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 have reviewed
the disclosures of Maas, Boxmeyer and Davis and fail to find
any teaching which would have suggested 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.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007