Appeal No. 2005-0186
Application No. 10/126,217
relationships among the antennas relate directly to this
respective sensitivity and the sensitivity profiles of the
plurality of antennas used in Wang’s device.
Based on the discussion at column 4 with respect to figure
1, it appears that each sub group 4, 5 and each coil within each
subgroup of antennas 4, 5 in figures 4 and 5 of the reference has
its own respective sensitivity. Appellants admit at the middle
of page 8 of the principal brief on appeal that Wang teaches
multiplying or otherwise combining the signals to the extent such
a feature is recited at the end of representative claim 1 on
appeal. Furthermore, it appears to us that as recognized by the
examiner with respect to figure 2, the combining operation as
reflected there mathematically actually “uses” the “relative
sensitivity of each [antenna] coil” at least to the extent of the
function E = D ÷ C. Appellants’ remarks in the brief and reply
brief do not argue to us otherwise.
The figure 2 showing of Wang at least broadly compares to
appellants’ showing in specification figure 8. We note the broad
relationships thereof as explained throughout the arguments
are reflected in detail in the language of dependent claims
10 through 12. The actual manner in which the relative
sensitivity of each coil is determined as disclosed is not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007