Appeal No. 1998-1736
Application 08/282,847
opposite to the variable driver sound wave creation means
in the Snaper gas separation apparatus in order to
achieve optimum separation for the power consumed as
taught by Zenner et al.
He also states on page 7 of the answer that Snaper and Zenner
both treat fluids “flowing in a conduit with sound waves at
an angle to fluid flow,” and that appellants’ comments (that
the references’ sound waves are not at an angle) “would also
seem to be irrelevant because claims 1-5 do not recite any
specific angle for the ultrasound waves produced.”
Even assuming that it would have been obvious to employ a
reflector on the side of the conduit opposite Snaper’s
transducers 22a, b, the thus-modified apparatus of Snaper5
would still not have ultrasonic generating means oriented to
create standing waves with their planar node and antinode
regions “oriented at an angle to the flow of fluid,” as
required by claim 1. Looking at Figure 2 of Snaper, it
appears that the planar node and antinode regions of the
standing waves created by transducers 22a, b would not be “at
5Although not argued by appellants, we note that, in
order to satisfy the language of claim 1, the reflector would
have to be positioned in Snaper’s chamber 14, an unlikely
location.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007