Appeal No. 1998-1251
Application 08/521,393
combination with Tuttle ‘375, and how that proposed combination would be made. With
regard to Daniel, the examiner identifies one difference with respect to the claimed
invention. Specifically, the examiner stated “Daniel uses harmonic rather than pulsed
signals” (answer at 3). As is, the rationale of the examiner in combining Tuttle ‘375 and
Daniel to arrive at the appellant’s claimed invention is both disjointed and incomplete. It is
not known what teachings of Daniel are combined with what teachings of Tuttle ‘375, and
for what reason. The examiner’s conclusion on page 3 of the answer that Daniel’s
teachings are immediately applicable to the structures of Tuttle ‘375 is not adequately
explained.
Furthermore, at least with regard to apparatus claims 1-10, the appellant in his
appeal brief specifically identifies several alleged differences between the claimed
invention and Daniel which have not been addressed by the examiner. The examiner has
failed to find either (1) that the claims do not require such features; (2) that Daniel does
disclose such features; or (3) that the deficiency of Daniel is harmless because Tuttle ‘375
teaches the subject features. These alleged differences have been ignored. On page 11
of the appeal brief, the appellant states:
Daniel’s uses detection of magnitude and phase shift in
order to measure the resistive and reactive components of a
solid conductor lightning ground system whereas Applicant
uses detection of magnitude and pulse risetime in order to
detect flaws in cable shields and conduit.
There are other differences between aplicant’s [sic]
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007