Appeal No. 2004-0618
Application No. 10/021,790
central body 10', skids 25 and 26, a rigid deflection arm 37'
pivotally attached at one end to the central body, a spring 46
biasing the free end of the deflection arm away from the central
body, a ruler 40' disposed on the free end of the deflection arm,
a ruler reference 52 connected to the central body for receiving
the ruler, and an external closed circuit TV camera 56 and
illumination light means 57 focused on the ruler and ruler
reference 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.
As framed by the appellants (see pages 6 through 9 in the
brief), the dispositive issue with respect to the examiner’s
rejections is whether Kirschke teaches, or would have suggested,
a pipeline inspection device responsive to the “reflective means”
limitation in representative claim 6.2 With regard to the
§ 102(b) rejection, the appellants submit that “Kirschke has no
reflective indicating means at all” (brief, pages 6 and 7) and
that “Kirschke’s light, camera, and ruler do not comprise a
‘reflecting [sic, reflective] means’ as that term is understood
within the context of the present invention” (brief, page 7). As
for the § 103(a) rejection, the appellants expand upon this line
2 Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007