Appeal No. 1999-1663
Application No. 08/715,221
Thompson (‘836) is comparing velocity with a previously
obtained correlation and does not teach comparing the
velocities with different i.e.,
non-loaded and loaded portions of a test piece as recited in
claim 1. We are therefore in agreement with the appellants
(reply brief, page 10) that Thompson (‘836) compares the
difference in velocity “to a previously obtained correlation
between velocity and stress in order to determine the
stress . . . ” and that in Thompson, the stress at the loaded
portion of the test piece is not evaluated based on a
difference in acoustic velocities of a wave between a non-
loaded portion and the loaded portion of the test piece, as
recited in claim 1.
We additionally note that although Thompson (‘081) has
not been relied upon by the examiner for a teaching of a
surface wave, that Thompson (‘081) discloses in Figure 6 the
effect of stress on the velocities of ultrasonic energy on a
test piece. Thompson (‘081) states that for this embodiment
(col. 7,
lines 38-41) “the transducer head of the instrument could be
fitted with shear wave generating transducers to obtain
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007