Appeal No. 1997-2455
Application 08/318,235
Beigel’s controller only interacts with the coil capacitor
combination via the variable load, whereas Appellants claimed
control means also sets the resonant frequency of the
transducer. Appellants assert that “[t]ransmitting a message
sequence to the variable load is not the same as setting the
resonant frequency of the coil-capacitor combination.” On
page 16 of the brief, Appellants argue that “[i]n claim 29 the
term ‘resonant frequency’ always refers to the transducer by
itself.” Appellants point out that on page 14 of the
specification, the adjustment of the resonant frequency of the
coil capacitor combination is accomplished by using a variable
inductor or a variable capacitor. On page 17 of the brief,
Appellants summarize their arguments with respect to the
rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102 stating that: a) Beigel
does not show a coil capacitor combination which has a
settable resonant frequency and b) a control means which sets
the resonant frequency of the coil capacitor.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner acknowledges that
there is a difference between the resonant frequency of the
coil capacitor combination and the coil capacitor combination
augmented by the load. However, the Examiner asserts that the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007