Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
the examiner, neglected to mention that Bendig was used in any
manner whatsoever to further modify the primary reference of
Anthony to arrive at claim 1 on appeal. We conclude that the
examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claim 1 on appeal since the final rejection fails
to even mention the resilient biasing member or the intermittent
contact between the mesh plate and the pump shaft. Further, we
find no rationale or motivation in the final rejection or any of
the examiner’s arguments concerning exactly how the three named
prior art references applied in the rejection of claim 1 on
appeal are intended to be combined by the examiner so as to
result in an ultrasonic atomizer responding to all of the
elements set forth in appellants’ claim 1.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner’s stated rejection of independent claim 1 on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Anthony in view of Bendig and
Takahashi.
We have additionally reviewed the patents to Berger
'067 and '708, Maehara, Sugimoto, Ross, Dobilas, Junghans,
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007