Appeal No. 1998-1736
Application 08/282,847
an angle” to the fluid flowing through conduit 10b, but rather
would be parallel to such flow. While claim 1 does not recite
any specific angle, as the examiner notes, we do not consider
that it would be reasonable to interpret “at an angle” so
broadly as to include an angle of zero. In the Zenner
apparatus, it appears that the components of the mixture
introduced into horn 11 would, in passing from inlet 10 to the
outlets 18 and 19, flow past the node and antinode planes at
an angle thereto. However, we find no mention of such angular
flow in Zenner, let alone any teaching or suggestion that it
is necessary or desirable to orient the node and antinode
planes of the standing waves at an angle to the fluid flow.
Thus, Zenner would have provided no motivation for one of
ordinary skill to orient the transducers and reflector of the
modified Snaper apparatus so that the planar node and antinode
regions of the standing waves would be at an angle to the flow
of fluid through conduit 10b.
The apparatus recited in claims 1 therefore would not
have been obvious over Snaper in view of Zenner, and we will
not sustain rejection (2) as to that claim, or as to dependent
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007