Appeal No. 1998-2201
Application No. 08/571,702
transponder 24 function as primary and secondary,
respectively, of a transformer, the magnetic field 29 that
encircles the annular tensile member 36 in turn causes the
transponder (i.e., secondary) to transmit (column 8, lines 32
through 57; column 15, lines 37 through 43; column 16, lines
18 through 30).
A comparison of Pollack’s device with the device
described in claim 13 reveals that this claim reads on the
Pollack device. Appellants’ argument (Brief, page 9) that
“the wand [12] itself is not ‘a stick’ but more properly a
part of the main body in that it contains active circuitry” is
without merit because nothing in claim 13 precludes the
inclusion of “active circuitry” in the wand/stick 12.
Appellants’ argument (Brief, page 10) that the Pollack probe
structure is not used in “a sweeping or moving operation” is
likewise without merit because claim 13 is a device claim
without such a step. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 13 is sustained because anticipation is the “ultimate1
1In keeping with 37 CFR § 1.192(a), arguments which
appellants could have made in the briefs have not been
considered by the Board.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007