Appeal No. 1997-3975
Application No. 08/395,376
agree with appellants that there is no suggestion in Shofner
or Duncan for producing a waveform that compensates for
varying velocities of the entities. The fact that velocity
can be measured in Duncan does not suggest the analyzer means
as recited in claim 13. Additionally, the record before us
does not support the examiner’s position that the specific
limitations of the analyzer means are inherent in the applied
prior art. Therefore,
the obviousness rejection with respect to claims 13 and 17 is
not sustained.
With respect to claims 14 and 18, which stand or fall
together [brief, page 5], appellants argue that nothing in
either Shofner or Duncan discloses the dividing of a waveform
into segments for cross-correlation [brief, page 8]. The
examiner responds that Shofner and Duncan inherently
compensate using a computer which includes any type of
mathematical procedure [answer, page 10].
The examiner’s position is totally without merit. There
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007