Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 19
Application No. 08/283,074
signal representing the cross-sectional area of a confined
volume as a function of distance from an opening therein.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in Seybert alone. Although the reference
discloses producing a variety of signals representing the
cross-sectional area of a confined volume, viz., "power
reflection coefficient, phase angle between incident and
reflected waves ... and resistive and reactive impedance," p.
1367, and "transmission loss," id., none of these signals are
a function of distance from an opening in the confined volume.
To the contrary, Figures 5-9 of the reference show that the
signals are a function of frequency.
Because Seybert's signals are a function of frequency, we
are not persuaded that the reference discloses or would have
suggested the aforementioned limitations. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 18, 21, 89, and
91 as anticipated by, and of claims 11, 22, and 90 as obvious
over, Seybert.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007