Ex Parte SRINIVASAN et al - Page 2


         Appeal No. 2002-0113                                                       
         Application 08/799,923                                                     

              generating a cathodic protection current map using the                
         measured sensed magnetic field.                                            
              16.  A method for designing a cathodic protection system for          
         ensuring a continuous uniform distribution of cathodic protection          
         current throughout an entire structure comprising the step of              
         modeling current and voltage distribution in a proposed structure          
         using a numerical technique.                                               
              The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of             
         unpatentability are:                                                       
         Murphy et al. (Murphy) 5,087,873             Feb. 11, 1992                 
         Westermann et al.                                                          
          (Westermann)            5,466,353           Nov. 14, 1995                 
              Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first              
         paragraph (enablement).                                                    
              Claims 14 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,             
         second paragraph (indefiniteness).                                         
              Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being             
         unpatentable over Westermann in view of Murphy.                            
              Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being            
         unpatentable over Murphy, with or without Westermann, in view of           
         the admitted prior art.                                                    
              Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together               
         under each rejection. (Brief, page 7).  Hence, we consider claims          
         1, 14, and 16.  37 CFR § 1.192(a)(7)(8)(2000).                             

                                   OPINION                                          
              For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse the                  
         35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections, affirm the rejection of claims 1-15,           
         and reverse the rejection of claims 16-20.                                 
                                       2                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007