Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
... no teaching in either reference which would lead one to
fix Dorr’s conical horn to the bottom of Barmatz’ straight
horn.” The examiner cites column 1, lines 54-61 of Dorr as a
motivation for attaching its conical horn to the straight horn
of Barmatz ‘435 stating that all energy is delivered to the
front of the structure. However, the energy distribution in
Dorr’s system is not directed to the problem of having a
straight horn levitating an object above the straight horn.
Without the benefit of appellant’s invention, an artisan would
not have had any motivation to combine the conical horn of
Dorr, which is simply a generic ultrasonic transducer, to
attach to the straight horn of Barmatz ‘435 to arrive at the
claimed structure of claim 16. Therefore, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claim
17 over Barmatz ‘435 in view of Dorr.
Lastly, we take claim 15. The examiner rejects claim 15
over Barmatz ‘823 in view of Rey. Final rejection at pages 5
and 6. Appellant argues, brief at page 7, that “[t]he
‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ of claim 15 ... would be
that wherein the surface which is the ‘bottom’ of the
levitator is defined when the object is levitating.” We do
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007