Appeal No. 1997-4043 Page 10
Application No. 08/124,332
assertion that “a person of ordinary skill would view back
reflections as something to be minimized in order to improve
imaging, rather than maximized,” (Reply Br. at 8), which 2
militates against the modification proposed by the examiner.
In view of these omissions, the examiner’s allegation amount
to impermissible reliance on the appellant’s teachings or
suggestions.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the
prior art would have suggested sealing the perimeter of a
processing surface to a cover plate to form an acoustically
reflective cavity therebetween as claimed. The examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
2To the contrary, the “Examiner agrees with Applicant's
desire to minimize ultrasonic reflection at a couplant/object
boundary ....” (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007