Appeal No. 1998-1603 Page 6
Application No. 08/428,940
disclose “choosing a frequency for said step of ultrasonic
oscillatory excitation such that the detected vibration
corresponds to a resonance in the skull bone” as recited in
claim 1. In addition appellant argues that Mick does not
disclose that only the phase between the applied excitation
and the detected vibration be determined to affect the
measurement.
The examiner argues:
However, in Claim 1 there is no language
that indicates a specific standing wave, a
specific vibration or a specific frequency
must be chosen. The language only claims
“a standing wave”, “a frequency” and “the
detected vibration” are of concern and does
not preclude the generation of numerous
standing waves, the choosing of multiple
frequencies or the detection of numerous
vibrations.
Similarly, there is no indication in
the Claim 1 language that a single resonant
peak is to be measured or that a single
frequency be applied to the skull bone.
[Examiner’s answer at page 6].
We do not agree with the examiner. The specification
discloses:
At specific frequencies, there are
resonance peaks in the response of the
skull which can be detected by sweeping the
excitation frequency on an excitation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007