Appeal No. 2002-0113
Application 08/799,923
The examiner states that Westermann differs from appellants’
claims in that appellants’ claims require the measurement of a
magnetic field generated by the protection current, and mapping
the measured data, as an indication of the proper distribution of
the protection current. (answer, page 3).
The examiner relies upon Murphy for teaching mapping of
cathodic protection current distribution by using magnetometers
to measure the magnetic field of the protection current.
(answer, page 3).
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
adopt the Murphy technique of mapping the magnetic field of the
protection current into the system of Westermann because magnetic
mapping does not require direct contact with an object to be
protected, and does not obscure small regions of activity.
(answer, pages 3-4).
On pages 7-8 of the brief, appellants argue that Westermann
does not address the problem sought to be solved by appellants,
i.e., the need for uniform distribution and lower installation
and maintenance costs, and hence does not disclose appellants’
design and monitoring techniques. Appellants further argue that
Westermann does not disclose the use of magnetic field sensing
means to determine the cathodic protection current.
Appellants admit that Murphy discloses the mapping of
currents, but they argue that Murphy’s figures only disclose such
mapping in a single one-dimensional conductor, namely a pipeline
buried in a conducting medium such as soil or asphalt.
Appellants point out that their invention maps currents flowing
through multiple metal reinforcing bars buried in concrete,
(brief, page 8), and urge that there is no evidence of a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007