Appeal No. 1999-1663
Application No. 08/715,221
surface wave between the non-loaded and loaded portions.
Thompson (‘081) therefore does not teach “evaluating stress at
the loaded portion of said piece based on a difference in
acoustic velocities of said surface wave between the non-
loaded portion and the loaded portion of said test piece” as
recited in claim 1. We additionally find that Hildebrand does
not overcome the deficiencies of Thompson (‘836) as Hildebrand
is not directed
toward the propagation of surface waves. Accordingly, we will
reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
claims 4 and 12 depend from claim 1, the rejection of claims
4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007