Appeal No. 2005-2035 Page 6
Application No. 10/281,417
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Dias and claims 1 to 7, it is our opinion that
one difference is the limitation that a hydrocarbon-based oil having a kinematic viscosity
of 20 mm2/s or less is used as an acoustic medium.
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that
it would have been obvious to an [sic] ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Dias's ultrasonic probe such that the acoustic
medium (32) is replaced with the hydrocarbon-based oil of Lochner[2] in order to
achieve a viscosity of 20 mm2/s so that acoustic imaging technique is improved.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree for the following two reasons.
First, the claimed hydrocarbon-based oil is not readable on polyglycol as
disclosed by Lochner. A hydrocarbon is a compound containing only the elements
2It is the examiner's position that the claimed hydrocarbon-based oil is readable
on polyglycol which is used as the basic material for the liquid phase of Lochner's
damping medium.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007