Appeal No. 2005-2760
Application 09/915,963
phase velocity being “greater than the speed of light” cannot be
describing an enabling invention.
The trouble with the examiner’s reasoning is that the
examiner has not specifically identified exactly what
“conventional theory of physics” is being referenced. As
appellants argue, at page 5 of the principal brief, while there
may be some notion that the speed of light is the upper bound on
the speed at which things travel through space, this does not
apply to basic physics principles as they relate to the phase
velocity of an electromagnetic wave.
In particular, appellants cite a website, www.mathpages.com,
specifically identifying the “Phase, Group, and Signal Velocity”
portion thereof, indented under “Physics.” Copies of pages 1-6
of that section were attached to appellants’ response of
September 10, 2003, and we attach same to this decision. At page
2 thereof, after defining “phase velocity” of a wave, the
reference goes on to say that “there is no upper limit on the
possible phase velocity of a wave,” with an explanation as to how
a general wave need not embody the causal flow of any physical
effects. While a mere citation of a website is usually not
probative because there is no assurance, as in, for example, a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007