Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
It is the examiner’s position that Maehara discloses
the flared outlet holes and that Sugimoto discloses a well-known
structure of the mesh plate having recesses between adjacent
holes in the plate. The examiner also states that “given the
lack of claimed limitations directed to any potentially disclosed
criticality of this shape noted by [appellants], such would
appear to be nothing more than a routine design choice” (final
rejection, pg. 6). To this, appellants contend that criticality
has been established in the specification on page 30, lines 2-4,
and point out that “the structure recited in claim 28 provides
the advantage that a comparatively large strength is achieved
without thickening the mesh plate” (brief, pg. 16). Appellants
also argue (brief, pg. 14) that “[n]one of the references teaches
or suggests an ultrasonic atomizer having a mesh plate comprising
a plate-shaped body having recesses between mutually adjacent
minute holes as required by [claim 28].” Appellants also point
out that Maehara’s nozzle base does not have recesses between
adjacent minute holes and argue that Sugimoto is non-analogous to
the invention at hand.
We agree with the appellants that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007