Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
Sukhin, Hughes, Ballentine and Goodman, but find nothing in these
references which provide teachings to overcome the deficiencies
we have noted above in the basic combination of Anthony, Bendig
and Takahashi. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejections of dependent claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 13 through 15
and 20 through 22, which depend from claim 1.
Further, we REMAND this case back to the examiner so
that the examiner can consider the combined teachings of Bendig
and Takahashi in a further evaluation of claim 1 on appeal.
Bendig appears to disclose all elements disclosed in Anthony as
well as additionally disclosing the resilient biasing member.
This biasing member of Bendig appears to inherently provide
intermittent contact between the sieve-like diaphragm 31 and
the atomizing disk 21 (upper end face of the pump shaft). This
is substantiated by Bendig in col. 2, lines 4-7, which states
that the “liquid to be atomized is moved on the surface of the
atomizing disk 21 where, due to the high frequency vibrations
of this disk 21, the liquid is finely atomized.” Without
intermittent contact, the liquid would not move on the surface
of the atomizing disk but would be directly sprayed out of the
disk opening 44. Bendig also states that the diaphragm 31 rests
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007