Appeal No. 1997-3975
Application No. 08/395,376
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)].
The examiner explains this rejection on pages 4-5 of
the answer. With respect to claims 13 and 17 which stand or
fall together [brief, page 5], appellants argue that neither
Shofner nor Duncan teaches a means for producing a compensated
waveform that compensates for varying velocities along the
length of the entity [brief, page 8]. The examiner responds
that compensation
is inherent in the systems of Shofner and Duncan [answer,
pages 9-10].
Whether compensation is broadly performed in Shofner
or Duncan is not the proper question to be considered by the
examiner. The proper question is whether the collective
teachings of the references would have suggested the
obviousness
of the analyzer means as specifically recited in claim 13. We
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007