Appeal No. 1998-2151
Application No. 08/580,823
Claims 9 and 11 are illustrative of the claimed invention
and they are appended to this decision.
Claims 2 through 11 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement. The
examiner’s rejection (Answer, pages 3 and 4) is as follows:
There is one and only one approach to extracting
the surface (three-dimensional) distribution of
values as described in the specification: two
(surface) integral equations are setup based on
multimode readings of the cavity Q. Any
measurements carried out are to be supported by the
only disclosed approach.
Appellant’s arguments that any non-disclosed feature
is conventional would imply that no specification is
really needed. The examiner’s position in this
regard is that any claim has to be supported by the
particular approach being disclosed in detail in the
specification, especially when the inventor himself
so states (page 3 in the specification).
The entire purpose of the measurements is
“solving the first system and the second system to
find the surface resistance and the surface
reactance distribution” (claim 11 step “c”). The
only reading recited or described is that of the
“unloaded quality factor Qo”. Note that there are
no details in the disclosure of how to “set up” the
given equations. There are no details of how to
read the tangential magnetic field (which is needed
for the set up). There are no details of how to set
up the second equation, which requires non-
dissipative readings (note that Qo does not show
up). There are no details of how to solve the
particular types of equations described.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007