« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
board and the solicitor rely on inherent disclosure through Peterson's Fig. 9, reproduced below.
FIG. 9. Peterson's specification states, with reference to Fig. 9, that either transducer 139 or transducer 140 may be the transmitter, with the other one the receiver. Assuming 140 to be the transmitter, it appears that the radiation, which Peterson says may be acoustical, travels in a path which prevents it from going directly to receiver 139 and that the axis of transducer 140 intersects a normal to the borehole wall at an angle of approximately 60°. While appellant stresses Peterson's ignorance of the difference between compressional and shear waves, the claims here differ from Peterson only in the recitation “the angle being chosen to minimize the compressional waves transmitted into the formations.” This recitation appears to state a result inherently obtained by use of the Peterson apparatus. Appellant has failed to point out any way in which the Peterson apparatus of Fig. 9 could be operated without achieving that result. We therefore conclude that the rejection of claims 11-14 as inherently anticipated by Peterson was correct and must be affirmed. As to claim 15, appellant asserts the impropriety of combining Peterson and Loofbourrow, but we see no reason why the Loofbourrow system could not be modified to contain angled transducers. We accordingly affirm the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 16–18 are apparatus claims of which 16 is the broadest, claims 17 and 18 being dependent thereon. 16. An apparatus for acoustical well logging comprising:
at least one mounting pad having means for forcing said pad against the wall of the borehole;
at least two spaced acoustical transducers that are each mounted in said pad, at least one of said transducers being capable of generating acoustical waves having a frequency exceeding 50 kilocycles per second and the other
transducer being capable of receiving said acoustical waves, said transducers in addition having a major dimension equal to at least one wave length of the frequency of said acoustical waves;
said transducers being mounted at an angle with their axes substantially intercepting angles of less than 90 degrees with respect to a normal from the wall of the borehole, said angle being approximately 60 degrees to minimize the response of the transducers to compressional waves;
means coupled to said generating transducer to generate a narrow beam of acoustical waves; and
measuring means coupled to said receiving transducers to measure a characteristic of the transducer signal of said other transducer as said pad
is moved through a borehole. Claims 16–18 stand rejected under 35 USC 103 based on either Loofbourrow (claims 16 and 17) or Blizard (claim 18), each in view of Goodman and Peterson. Each of these claims involves transducers in a pad pressed against the wall. The transducers are not merely angled so that their axes intersect behind the wall as in claims 19-23, but at a specified angle of 60°, which appellant has disclosed as being an appropriate angle for minimizing compressional waves and maximizing shear waves. Peterson was applied against each of these claims as a secondary reference. The question is not one of novelty, but of obviousness. The issue comes down to whether, in a system having the measuring means of Loofbourrow or Blizard, it would have been obvious to use a pressed-against-the-wall pad for holding the transducers, as shown in Goodman, and to fix the transducer axes at approximately 60° to a normal to the borehole wall. We find that it would have been obvious, since Peterson's Fig. 9 above shows transducers mounted approximately at that angle, as contended by the examiner and not contested by appellant. Appellant has not convinced us of any reason why one skilled in the art would be led away from using the angle shown in Peterson. Appellant's better appreciation of the advantages of this angle is of no avail under these circumstances, since the prior art suggests the use of that very angle. Accordingly, we affirm the board's decision as to claims 16–18.
The decision of the board is affirmed.
427 F.2d 1378; 166 USPQ 204
IN RE CALVIN M. HAMMACK (No. 8278)
Although examiner seemed to question whether claims are supported by disclosure, a matter involving question of compliance with first paragraph of 35 USC 112, examiner and Board considered that claims were indefinite and expressly relied only on second paragraph of section 112 as grounds for rejection; therefore, court considers only question of compliance with second
paragraph. 2. CLAIMS INDEFINITE-IN GENERAL
Second paragraph of 35 USC 112 defines a requirement additional to that of distinguishing from prior art under sections 102 and 103; essence of that requirement is that language of claims must make it clear what subject matter
they encompass. 3. PATENT GRANT-IN GENERAL
All provisions of statute must be complied with in order to obtain a patent. 4. CLAIMS-INDEFINITE-IN GENERAL
Requirement stated in second paragraph of 35 USC 112 existed long before present statute came into force; its purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach area circumscribed by parent claims, with adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine boundaries of protection involved and evalu
ate possibility of infringement and dominance. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS-INTRODUCTORY PHRASE
Reference in claim preamble to an "electronic system" for performing a complex function does not name a known apparatus in such manner that the undefined characteristics and relationships of the recited elements would appear to be made known or understood by those skilled in the art.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, July 2, 1970
Appeal from Patent Office, Serial No. 86,770
Victor R. Beckman, attorney of record, for appellant. Melvin R. Stidham, of counsel.
Joseph Schimmel for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, of counsel.
(Oral argument February 6, 1970 by Mr. Sears; appellant submits on brief]
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Associate Judges, and FORD, Judge,
sitting by designation.
BALDWIN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 43, 46, 51, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67–69, 76 and 81 of appellant's patent application as indefinite and thus failing to comply with 35 USC 112. Seven claims stand allowed.
The subject matter of the application on appeal relates to the determination of the position and velocity of moving bodies such as air
1 Serial No. 86,770, filed Feb. 2, 1961, for "Polystation Doppler System For Tracking Vehicles, Measuring Displacement and Rate Thereof and Similar Applications."
craft, space vehicles, ballistic missiles, and submarines. The well-known doppler effect, which broadly stated is the phenomenon whereby relative movement between a source of emanations or reflections of a wavetrain (such as sound waves or electromagnetic waves) and a receiver of the wave train results in an effective change in wave frequency, is used as the basis of measurements for making the determination. Appellant's basic measurements are of doppler effect responses indicative of either radial velocity or change in radial range. Various systems are disclosed, each requiring a plurality of such measurements in different combinations and different time relationships. Some systems use a wave transmitter in the moving body with a receiver or receivers elsewhere, and others use transmitters and receivers at known positions, as on the ground, and make the measurements by means of waves reflected from the moving bodies. The latter are disclosed as using a plurality of transmitter and cooperating receiver combinations, with the transmitter and receiver of each combination either at the same location or at different locations. It is contemplated that measured electrical values representative of the radial velocities and changes in radial ranges for the different stations and different times may be fed to computer apparatus to calculate the position or velocity of the target. Certain of the systems are disclosed with some specificity while other systems are described through general statements of modifications that may be made. A wide variation of systems is contemplated.
Although the appealed claims differ so widely that none can be designated as truly representative, claims 43, 58, 59 and 67 are set out as examples:
43. A method of determining the otherwise unknown and unbounded position of each of a number of well separated points in space comprising the steps of determining differences between geometric parameters of configurations associated with said points of unknown position, each of said configurations including only a single one of said points of unknown position and a plurality of points whose positions are known, each of said differences being determined between two selected configurations each configuration of said two selected configuration[s] comprising the same number of known points as comprised by the other of said two selected configurations, and determining in orthogonal coordinates the position of each of said points of otherwise unknown and unbounded position using the said determined differences and the coordinates of the points of known position.
58. A method of locating a moving object whose position is unknown and unbounded other than as described in ne steps of this claim comprising the following steps:
Step 1. Establishing in space a plurality of reference points separate from each other and separate from the moving object;
Step 2. Transmitting wave signals from one of said reference points, which wave signals impinge upon said moving object.
Step 3. Modifying the spectrum at one of said reference points, of said ware signals at said moving object in accordance with the motion of said moving object;
Step 4. changing the direction of propagation of said wave signals at said moving object;
Step 5. detecting the modified wave signals and the modification thereof;
Step 6. determining from said detected signals the values of a quantity which is linearly related to the variation of the sum of the distance from the transmitting reference point to the moving object and the distance from the moving object to the receiving reference point;
Step 7. performing a plurality of said determinations using substantially simultaneously a number of said reference points such that the otherwise unknown and unbounded position of the moving object is completely determined and specified by the said values and the known parameters associated with said reference points and said determinations such that any useful degree of redundancy is provided.
59. An electronic system for detecting a moving reflecting object and locating the position thereof, which position is neither known nor in any way bounded and whose characteristics of motion are similarly unknown and unbounded, said system being capable of performing the above functions on a single unknown moving reflecting object in the presence of a plurality of such moving objects, comprising the following:
(1) Wave transmitting means for illuminating said moving reflecting objects;
(2) remote from said transmitting means, receiving means for detecting the signals reflected from said moving reflecting objects;
(3) frequency reference means at said transmitting means and at said receiving means, particularly accurate with respect to each other, for providing a common frequency base between the various transmitting and receiving means, permitting accurate determination of variations of time delay associated with the propagation paths between said transmitting means and said receiving means by way of said moving reflecting object.
(4) At said receiving means directional apertures for providing some discrimination between waves from separate spaced moving reflecting objects and for improving the signal to noise ratio of the signal to be detected by said receiving means;
(5) At said receiving means tracking filter means for improving discrimination between waves from separate moving reflecting objects whose courses and positions are such that there is a difference in the character of the reflected waves owing to the differences of such positions and motions, and for improving the signal to noise ratio of the detected signal.
(6) means connected to said receiving means for measuring discrete, substantial, and finite increments of the unknown lengths of the propagation paths of wares transmitted by said transmitting means and detected by said receiving means;
(7) a plurality of combinations each comprising elements (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6);
(8) computing means connected to said plurality of measuring means, said computing means programmed to solve a set of simultaneous equations, said set comprising as unknown quantities the orthogonal coordinates of said moving object at the initiation and the termination of each increment measurement and comprising as known quantities the values of wave path length increments measured by said measuring means.