Appeal No. 2004-0618
Application No. 10/021,790
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 9) and answer
(Paper No. 10) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
Kirschke discloses “[a]n elongated skid mounted measuring
device for utilization in conjunction with a closed circuit TV
camera for accurately determining variations in the internal
diameter of a conduit” (Abstract). A first embodiment (see
Figures 1 and 2) comprises a tubular central body 10 mounted on
skids 25 and 26, a spring steel deflection arm 37 attached at one
end to the central body, a metal ruler 40 fixed to the free end
of the deflection arm, a ruler slide 41 connected to the central
body for slidably receiving the ruler, and an internal closed
circuit TV camera 56 and illumination light means 57 focused on
the ruler and ruler slide to observe changes in the relative
positions of the two caused by movement of the deflection arm in
response to variations in the internal diameter of the conduit.
A second embodiment (see Figures 3 through 5) includes a tubular
1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 7), claims 6, 8 and 9
additionally stood rejected, along with claims 7 and 10, under
both the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
examiner subsequently withdrew these rejections (see page 2 in
the answer) in light of the arguments advanced in the appellants’
brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007