Appeal No. 1997-2455
Application 08/318,235
the specification is silent as to how these elements are
interconnected. Though Appellants have argued on page 24 of
the brief that there is a distinction between the resonant
frequency of coil capacitor pair and coil capacitor pair plus
load, we find no such distinction. The circuit elements used
to adjust the resonant frequency of the transducer are neither
claimed nor disclosed in a manner which distinguishes these
elements from a load on the transducer. Accordingly, we hold
that the scope of claim 29 includes that the resonant
frequency of the transducer is settable to any one of a
plurality of values by the control means. Further, we find
that the only requirement for the element which sets the
resonant frequency is that it is controlled by the control
means.
Having determined the scope of the claim, we next
consider the disclosure of Beigel. We find that Beigel’s coil
210 and capacitor 220, meet the claimed transducer having a
resonant frequency. We find that Beigel’s variable load meets
the claimed modulator and that Beigel’s controller 245 meets
the claimed control means. Beigel discloses in column 6,
lines 54 through 56, that the controller uses variable load to
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007