Appeal No. 1998-0225
Application No. 08/503,817
Thus, the issue before us is whether Albee does, indeed, disclose a magnetic impedance
element, as claimed.
We hold, contrary to the examiner, that Albee’s negative inductor element 26 does
not constitute a magnetic impedance element, as claimed. Specifically, we find ourselves
in agreement with appellants’ reasoning, at pages 9-10 of the reply brief, that while claims
2 and 7 each requires a magnetic impedance element for detecting a magnetic field,
Albee’s negative inductor 26 does not detect a magnetic field. Rather, Albee’s element 26
is connected in parallel with antenna 18 “for the purpose of eliminating the frequency
response of the antenna...” and that “the negative inductor 26 is responsive to the voltage
across the antenna...and not to a magnetic field (which is detected by the antenna).”
[emphasis in original] Since Albee offers no suggestion of the negative inductor 26
detecting a magnetic field, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would have been led
to provide the negative inductor 26 of Albee in the receiver portion of a modified
Takeuchi/Salisbury device in order to detect a magnetic field, as claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Having said that, we note that we are uncomfortable with the breadth of the
independent claims. It appears that the well known magnetic impedance element, as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007