Appeal No. 2002-2304
Application No. 09/419,157 Page 6
anything dealing with attenuation of electromagnetic energy
waveforms, and that a finding of inherency made manifest by use
of extrinsic evidence is not supportable if it is necessary to
prove facts beyond those disclosed in the reference in order to
meet the claim limitations. It is further argued (brief, page
17) that extrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to
explain, but not expand the meaning of a reference. It is
further argued (brief, page 19) that claims 1-38 recite “‘at
least two electrical connectors spaced to attenuate at least one
prespecified frequency electromagnetic energy waveform’.”
Appellants assert (id.) that in appellants' claim recitations,
the frequency is prespecified and the spacing is then made such
that the prespecified frequency is attenuated. It is argued that
in the examiner's mischaracterization of the claim limitations,
the frequency to be attenuated is a function of prespecified
distance.
In response, the examiner (answer, page 9) relies upon the
textbook University Physics, 6th. ed., Sears, Zemansky, and
Young, 1982, as documentary proof to support the examiner's
determination of inherency. The examiner argues (id.) that the
phenomena of wave attenuation is a natural consequence of the
principle of linear superposition of two waveform sources
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007