Appeal No. 1998-0225
Application No. 08/503,817
described in the Mohri article cited by appellants, exhibits exactly the functions (detecting a
magnetic field and changing impedance in accordance with the detected magnetic field)
as those recited in the claims. Therefore, it is not clear whether the instant claimed subject
matter would have been obvious thereover or whether it is appellants’ discovery of the
problem of the use of an electromagnetic coil in the receiver and the substitution therefor of
the magnetic impedance element, i.e., a new and unobvious use of the MI element, which
constitutes the invention. This issue does not seem to have been fully addressed by either
the briefs or the answer.
Moreover, since it would appear that loop antennas exhibit the property of detecting
magnetic fields and changing impedance in accordance with the frequency of a detected
magnetic field [even appellants admit, at page 10, lines 5-6 of the reply brief, that an
antenna would detect a magnetic field], it is not clear why the use of a loop antenna, alone,
would not meet the claim limitations. For example, while Albee is concerned with
eliminating the frequency response of the antenna 18, impliedly “teaching away” from the
instant claimed invention, the reference would seem to imply [column 2, lines 4-10] that
without Albee’s improvement of the negative inductor, the system would operate
conventionally wherein the antenna 18 would be responsive to detect a magnetic field and
change impedance in accordance with the frequency of a detected magnetic field. If that is
the case, the antenna 18 might be considered to be functionally equivalent to the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007