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 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007