Appeal No. 1998-1736
Application 08/282,847
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
(3) Claims 7 and 11, unpatentable over Snaper in view of
Zenner and Faulkner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
(4) Claims 6 and 8 to 10, unpatentable over Snaper in view of
Zenner and Magill (claim 6), or Snaper in view of Zenner,
Faulkner and Magill (claims 8 to 10), under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).1
Rejection (1)
The basis for this rejection, as stated by the examiner
on page 4 of the answer, is that there is no clear support in
the specification for the portion of claim 1 underlined above.
The examiner also notes on page 6 of the answer that the
specification as filed failed to describe manipulation of the
frequency and phase of the variable driver sound wave creation
1This is our interpretation of the ground of rejection,
the examiner having stated on page 6 of the answer only that
claims 6 and 8 to 10 “stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claims
1 and 7, respectively above, and further in view of Magill et
al.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007