Appeal No. 1998-2645 Page 5
Application No. 08/815,747
contested the specific objections to claims 5 to 9 in the
brief or reply brief. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the2
rejection of claims 5 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a liquid stream to be
projected with a velocity causing it to collide with an
opposing side wall with sufficient force to generate negative
ions and thereby create an electrostatically-charged mist
which acts to capture particulate matter in a gas stream.
However, this limitation is not taught or suggested by Clark
2Attached to the reply brief is a Corrected Appendix
which the appellant states (p. 1) corrects minor errors in
claims 5, 6, 7 and 9. No amendment proposing these changes is
of record in the filewrapper.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007