Appeal No. 97-0690
Application No. 08/375,094
of pulsating control chambers, with an
oscillating/reciprocating member in each of said chambers
which
is rapidly oscillated by the flow of liquid into the
respective pulsating control chambers to drive the liquid out
of the device in the form of pulses, as generally required in
appellant’s claim 1 on appeal. Accordingly, in view of this
understanding of the operation of the device in Lockwood, we
find appellant’s
arguments as set forth in the brief to be unpersuasive and we
will therefore sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we note that page 5 of appellant’s brief
indi-cates that “claims 1, 9 and 11 are grouped together.”
Thus, we conclude that claims 9 and 11 on appeal fall with
claim 1.
To summarize our decision, we note that the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 10 and 15 through 20 under 35
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007