Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
width, i.e., the selection of the transducer array configuration
will determine the beam width. Accordingly, we find no
convincing argument by appellant to overcome the examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness.
Appellant’s other arguments, relative to Chang, regarding
dynamically focussing a beam at a plurality of independent points
on an object rather than collecting all of the data within a
prescribed beam [principal brief-page 5; reply brief-page 2] are,
again, directed to limitations not appearing in the claims. If
these argued features do, somehow, refer to certain claim
limitations, appellant has not pointed out the specific claim
language to which he refers.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and
10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over
Elko and Gale, the examiner clearly explains the rejection at
pages 5-6 of the answer.
Appellant argues that Elko’s taps, in Figure 1, do not have
“adjustable relative time delays” as recited in claim 9, but,
instead, they have “fixed” relative time delays. Moreover,
appellant argues, there is no teaching of “computer controlled
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007