Appeal No. 1999-2202
Application No. 08/733,620
such first and second electromagnet coils in view of Ohno.2 As a
consequence, for reasons analogous to those discussed previously,
even if Barnes were provided with first and second electromagnet
coils, the earlier mentioned deficiency of Barnes would remain
outstanding and the rejection still would be improper. Thus, the
section 103 rejection of claims 6, 7 and 18-21 as being
unpatentable over Barnes in view of Ohno likewise cannot be
sustained.
For similar reasons, we also cannot sustain the examiner’s
section 103 rejection of claims 8-11 as being unpatentable over
Barnes in view of Mintz. That is, even if Barnes were modified
in the manner proposed by the examiner, the above discussed
deficiency of Barnes would remain outstanding and thus the
rejection still would be improper.
2
2 We observe that Ohno clearly discloses (e.g., see Figures
3-5 and the disclosure relating thereto) the previously discussed
magnetic fields/RF coil arrangement which is so clearly absent
from Barnes. However, since the examiner has not relied on this
specific aspect of Ohno’s disclosure in the rejection under
consideration, neither shall we.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007