Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
azimuth. See pages 4-5 of the answer. The examiner specifically
points to column 2, lines 40 et seq. for the teaching of, in the
case of dynamic focusing, changing the delay time of each
delayer. The examiner also contends that, in Chang, the variable
sampling time implements the variable delay and that it is
inherent that any beam has a specific beam width.
The examiner’s rationale appears reasonable in view of the
rather broad language of claim 1 and, its method counterpart,
claim 10.
Appellant’s principal argument in this regard is that there
is no teaching or suggestion, in Chang, of the “specifically
selected beam width” [principal brief-page 5]. The only claim in
this group which recites a “specific beam width” is claim 13.
Thus, the argument is not even germane to claims 1-4 and 10-12.
With regard to claim 13, this claim does not recite that the
“specific beam width” is “selected,” as now argued by appellant.
Accordingly, appellant is, again, arguing limitations which do
not appear in the claims and, therefore, the argument is not
persuasive.
Moreover, appellant admits, at page 2 of the reply brief
[The width of Chang’s beam is determined by the configuration of
the transducer array...”], that Chang discloses a selective beam
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007