Appeal No. 2003-0295
Application 09/435,324
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Both of the appellant’s independent claims (33 and 45)
require a wall having a top surface that is above a top surface
of the transducers in an array of transducers. Claim 33 recites
that the wall is formed of an acoustic insulator, and claim 45
recites that the wall is part of a means for minimizing the
transmission of signals sensed or transmitted by transducers to
adjacent transducers.
The examiner relies upon Barthe’s transduction elements 110
as being the appellant’s array of transducers, and argues that
Barthe’s interelement filler 124, which preferably “is comprised
of an acoustically lossy material to absorb laterally propagating
acoustic energy, thus tending to reduce lateral resonance and
isolate the various transduction elements 110" (col. 3, lines 35-
38), has a wall that is above a top surface of the transduction
elements (figure 2) (answer, pages 3-4).
Barthe, however, teaches that frontal matching layer 112 is
part of his transducer (col. 2, lines 54-57) and functions to
supply structural integrity to the transducer, maintain the
relative positions of the transduction elements, and transmit
acoustic energy to or from the transduction elements (col. 3,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007