Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
this appeal and will decide the issues on appeal based on those
claims alone.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Anthony in view of Bendig and
Takahashi, we note that Anthony discloses an ultrasonic spraying
device having an ultrasonic source 2, a spray nozzle 5 having a
free upper end 6 with a diaphragm 9 disposed thereon, and a
liquid supply 8 entering transverse to the body of the spraying
device. Anthony (col. 3, lines 36-42) also discloses that
member 7a may be moved forward and rearward
at least slightly relative to the body of the
spraying device, and this allows the pressure
with whcih [sic] diaphragm 9 is held against
nozzle 5 to be varied. Adjusting this
pressure modifies within large ranges the
characteristics of the nebulized liquid
discharged from the spraying device.
Bendig discloses an ultrasonic atomizer having an
ultrasonic source 10, a spray nozzle 20 having an atomizing disk
21 with a diaphragm 31 disposed thereon, and a liquid supply 19
also entering transverse to the body of the spraying device. In
addition, Bendig discloses a spring biased cap 30 which encloses
the atomizing disk 21 of the nozzle. The cap 30 includes two
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007