Appeal No. 1997-4043 Page 7
Application No. 08/124,332
Inspection", would recognize that couplant fluid
which fills the area underneath the inspected
object, had been chosen to minimize the acoustic
reflection at the couplant/object boundary, rather
than to maximize such reflections. Furthermore, a
person of ordinary skill, viewing Fig. 10 and the
accompanying text, would recognize that back
reflections are typically eliminated from the
display due to their large size and potential for
generating confusion and error. Accordingly, a
person of ordinary skill would view back reflections
as something to be minimized in order to improve
imaging, rather than maximized as the Examiner has
asserted.
Of course, absent a motivation to maximize back
reflection, there is no motivation to form a gas
bubble against the back surface of the tested
object, and thus no motivation to form a seal with a
perimeter of the inspected object so as to prevent
the immersion fluid from invading this area, and
thus, nothing leading to the "sealing rim" or
“sealing" step recited in the present claims.
(Reply Br. at 8.)
The examiner’s reply follows.
[T]he issue at hand is ... the object/reflective
material boundary that the ultrasonic waves come
into contact with after already passing through the
object to be tested. Thus, by maximizing the
reflection of the ultrasonic waves after passing
through the test object, the test object can be
"tested" again since the ultrasonic waves must
travel through the object for a second time.
(Supplemental Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
We agree with the appellants.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007