Appeal No. 1999-1663
Application No. 08/715,221
the features of claim 1 with the exception (answer, page 4)
that “Thompson (“836”) fail to explicitly teach that said
waves are acoustic waves.” The examiner relies on Thompson
(‘081) and Hildebrand for a teaching that (answer, page 5)
“one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
transducer of Thompson et al (“836”) produces acoustic waves
and thus the velocities that are measured are accordingly
acoustic velocities.”
The appellants do not challenge the fact that the
invention of Thompson (‘836) utilizes acoustic waves.
However, the appellants assert (brief, page 12) that Thompson
(‘836) does not disclose a surface wave that propagates in a
surface layer of the test piece as claimed, and that in
Thompson (‘836), the forces produced on the surface of the
test block 3 of Thompson (‘836) produce a transverse or shear
wave which propagates through the thickness of the test block
3. The appellants’ position (reply brief, page 4) is that the
term “surface wave” in claim 1 has a specific meaning in the
art. Included with the brief are, inter alia, Attachments “A”
- “F”, which the appellants rely upon for an explanation of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007