Appeal No. 2002-0113
Application 08/799,923
specification for, example, on page 17 at lines 16-17.
Appellants also state that the steps of using a numerical
technique, such as FEM are known.
With respect to the phrase “means for sensing the
environment”, upon our review of the specification, we find that
the specification discloses, on page 17, that the design of the
cathodic protection system should not only include electrode
geometric parameters, but also the spatial and temporal effects
of micro-environmental, and micro-climatic factors that effect
cathodic reaction. In other words, temperature, humidity,
wetness, oxygen and chloride concentrations, and pH, should all
be included as a part of the design, maintenance and management
of the cathodic protection systems. In view of this disclosure,
we find that the phrase “sensing the environment” is not
indefinite.
With respect to the phrase “using a numerical technique”
as discussed supra with respect to the enablement rejection,
appellants have demonstrated that numerical techniques, such as
FEM, is well known in the art. We note that the claims are
broad, but breadth is not indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d
786, 787, 169 USPQ 597, 599 (CCPA 1971).
In view of the above, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph (indefiniteness) rejection of claims 14 and 16-20.
III. The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Westermann in view of Murphy
The examiner relies upon Westermann for teaching a system
for cathodic protection of concrete reinforcing rebars by using a
plurality of anode groups E located at various locations.
(answer, page 3).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007