Appeal No. 1998-0204
Application 08/501,542
that claim 1 is unpatentable over Sampietro under 35 U.S.C. §
103. We will therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and likewise claims 4, 6
through 9, 11 through 13, 15 and 18 through 21 which stand or
fall in the same group.
With respect to claim 22, a method rendition of
apparatus claim 1, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
this claim for the same reasons enumerated supra. The claimed
method is clearly met by Sampietro, and at least would have
been obvious thereover.
Appellants argue that claims 2 and 3 are patentable
over Sampietro because they require the bucking field to be
active “for a time of about 0.10 second”, and this limitation
is not necessarily obtained by routine experimentation and
optimization. (Brief-page 23.)
The Examiner maintains that mere experimentation
would determine this time period and cites Sampietro, column
2, lines 56-63 (final rejection), wherein it states “by
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007