Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
processor in accordance with this specific sound direction. So
while it may be true that Elko produces a specific sound
direction and width sound signal according to a specific sound
direction and another noise source, Elko does show that the
production of a specific sound direction and width sound is
produced according to at least a specific sound direction and the
claim does not preclude Elko’s further use of a noise source.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Since the rejections of claims 8 and 14, which are grouped
together with claim 1 by appellant, are not separately argued,
and these rejections rely in part on Elko, we will also sustain
the rejection of claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-13 under
35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner relies on Chang. It is the
examiner’s position that, since Chang discloses the receipt of
reflected ultrasonic sound signals in a multimicrophone array,
and uses variable delays implemented by various sampling times to
form a directed beam at a desired point, in order to scan the
reflection field to reconstruct an image, the beam must be
focussed at different points and this must be done by varying the
relative delays along the array to slew the beam direction in
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007