Ex Parte Jopling et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2004-0576                                                          Page 2              
             Application No. 10/087,374                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                      
                   The appellants' invention relates to marine seismic surveying (specification, p. 1).        
             A copy of claims 2 to 11 is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.  Claim 1          
             reads as follows:                                                                                 
                          A boomer for generating acoustic signals in a marine seismic survey,                 
                   comprising:                                                                                 
                          a frame adapted to be towed by a survey vessel,                                      
                          a coil mounted to the frame,                                                         
                          a conductive plate adjacent to the coil,                                             
                          a capacitor mounted within the frame, and                                            
                          a control electronics system mounted within the frame for delivering                 
                   electric charge stored in the capacitor to the coil.                                        


                   Claims 1 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as                    
             containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as           
             to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly            
             connected, to make and/or use the invention.1                                                     


                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and               
             the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer               
             (Paper No. 10, mailed May 22, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support              



                   1 The rejection of claims 1 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 made in the final rejection was withdrawn
             by the examiner in the answer.                                                                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007