Appeal No. 1999-0602
Application 08/469,393
us on the merits and no persuasive arguments on a procedural basis, we sustain the
rejection.
Turning next to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and its separate
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), we sustain both rejections. We make reference initially
to the examiner’s statement of this rejection at pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection as
further amplified at pages 4 and 5 of the answer. The examiner has essentially correlated
the structural features presented in appellant’s "method of achieving an . . . antenna" of
claim 15 in the noted pages of the final rejection and answer.
Our study of the translation of Yokozawa is consistent with the examiner’s views
expressed in these portions of the final rejection and answer. Claim 15 does not recite the
manner in which the plurality of magnetic field transducing devices are connected in the
array claimed. Thus, the various serially connected and parallel connected SQUIDs in
Yokozawa meet this broadly defined feature of the claims. The various figures of
Yokozawa show the manner in which this SQUIDs are connected in series, in parallel and
in a combination of serial and parallel networks. As such, the electromagnetic radiation is
therefore broadly distributed as claimed over the entire arrays shown in these figures. Not
only does the amplifier 5 in the figures provide a means of combining the output signals
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007