Appeal No. 1998-1927
Application No. 08/703,276
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over2
Fisher in view of McCarty or Aida.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) and the answer
(Paper No. 12) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to
the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we
have determined that the examiner's rejections are sustainable.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 12 as being anticipated by the
Fisher patent, the appellants argue on pages 4 and 5 of their brief that the Fisher patent lacks
(1) an elongated sensing means for detecting said acoustic energy originating . . . at said
focal point and (2) means for processing output signals . . . produced in response to
simultaneous impingement of the acoustic energy therealong from the focal point and, thus,
fails to anticipate claim 1.3
2We note that the appellants (brief, pages 3-5) have argued the rejections of claims 21 and 12 as if they
were under § 102 and § 103, respectively, notwithstanding that the examiner's final rejection (Paper No. 6) and
answer (Paper No. 12) clearly indicate that claims 21 and 12 stand rejected under § 103 and § 102, respectively.
3Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007