Appeal No. 1998-2443
Application No. 08/704,956
examiner’s contention, we find nothing within the translation of Oshima indicating that the
container wall proximate to the transducer is sufficiently thin so as to vibrate and launch
compressional waves under the influence of an EMAT and the examiner has pointed to
nothing within the Oshima disclosure suggesting such a vibration of the container wall or
that the container wall in Oshima is a thin wall in the sense that the thickness of the wall is
much shorter than the ultrasonic wavelength that would be propagated through the metal
forming the wall, as defined at pages 6-7 of the instant specification. We would also note
that because instant claim 21 requires the “thin metal wall” to be “in contact with the liquid
contents,” any “thin metal wall”
in Oshima would need to be located at the bottom of the tank in order to meet the
limitations of instant claim 21.
Skrgatic does disclose that an ultrasonic frequency is chosen such that the
frequency and the thickness of the container satisfy a defined relationship. Skrgatic further
discloses [column 2, lines 9-19] that the frequency is chosen so that the container wall
forms a quarter-wavelength plate and that this choice of frequency “avoids any sizeable
echo or resonance from the tank.” However, Skrgatic does not indicate that the container
wall of a “quarter-wavelength” is a “thin metal wall,” as set forth in instant claim 21 and, in
fact, by the disclosure of avoiding any sizeable echo or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007