Appeal No. 2005-0186
Application No. 10/126,217
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Wang 5,712,567 Jan. 27, 1998
Claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Wang.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 14 on appeal as
being anticipated by Wang. The only feature of claims 1 and 14
argued to us not to be found in Wang relates to the “relative
sensitivity of each coil” at the end of these claims.
According to the prior art discussion at column 1 of Wang,
it was known to use two sub-arrangements of antennas to produce
an enhanced single image. Furthermore, it was known that local
antennas used to determine or sense the respective images were
also known to have non uniform sensitivities. The art has
developed the concept of sensitivity profiles to deal with this,
which is a good part of the subject of the invention in Wang as
exhibited initially in the title of his invention. In part, as
discussed at columns 1 and 2, the physical parameters and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007