Appeal No. 1999-1663
Application No. 08/715,221
velocity of the surface waves. In support of this position,
the appellants rely on Attachment “G” in which Figure 2.16
shows a transducer for generating and detecting a surface wave
that has completely different structure and operation than the
transducers of Thompson (‘836). In addition, the appellants
rely on Attachments “H” and “I” to establish that the
transducer of Thompson (‘836) would not accurately measure
surface waves if they were applied to the test piece.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 4) is that since
the propagating waves of Thompson (‘836) “enter the test piece
via said piece’s surface and reflect there within via a
surface of the piece . . . ” that (id.) “said waves are deemed
as including ‘surface waves.’” In addition, the examiner
takes the position that (answer, page 6) “some of these waves
[of Thompson (‘836)] are inherently going to include surface
waves which propagate through the piece’s surface layer.” As
a response to Attachments “A” - “I” submitted with the brief,
and the appellants’ accompanying arguments, the examiner
states (answer, page 9) that
Appellants then counter the Examiner’s rejection by
providing arguments which take in excess of 15 pages
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007