Appeal No. 98-0956
Application 08/385,331
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the brief (Paper No. 10, filed
May 1, 1997) and the reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed September 15, 1997).
Sokolov, the alleged anticipatory reference in the examiner’s § 102 rejection and
the primary reference in the examiner’s § 103 rejections, pertains to a dispersion aerosol
generator comprising a liquid supplying tube 6, a rotating spray disk 1, an induction
electrode 3 mounted above the periphery of the spray disk, and a pair of precipitating
electrodes 4 and 5 mounted beyond the peripheries of the spray disk and induction
electrode. The operation of the Sokolov apparatus is described in paragraph 6 of the
translation. Briefly, liquid from tube 6 strikes rotating disk 1, where it is dispersed as drops
from the edge of the disk through the effect of centrifugal forces. The induction electrode
positioned above the disk induces a charge on the drops. The charged drops enter the
space between the precipitating electrodes 4 and 5, where relatively smaller drops are
precipitated onto the electrode 5 and gathered in the collector 9. Larger drops having
sufficient kinetic energy escape the electric field between the precipitating electrodes. By
regulating the charge on the precipitating electrodes, the size of the drops that are
permitted to escape can be controlled.
Considering first the § 102 rejection of claim 19 based on Sokolov, claim 19 is
directed to the non-illustrated embodiment described on page 15, lines 5 to 16 of the
specification. Claim 19 calls for an apparatus including, inter alia, “a single spray nozzle,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007