Appeal No. 1998-2719
Application No. 08/535,404
The cavity in which capsule 21 is placed is defined by (single) cylindrical wall "Z."
Front surface 15 might, arguably, be a portion of a wall which in part "defines" the cavity,
since it meets the top of cylindrical wall "Z." Further, front port 23 might, arguably, "face" a
wall comprised of front surface 15. However, even if so, sideward facing ports 24 would
not face a "second wall" opposed to the first wall. Sideward facing ports 24 face
cylindrical wall "Z" and, perhaps, an outer side wall of housing 10. The outer side wall of
housing 10 is not, however, opposed to a wall comprised of front surface 15.
We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Fatovic, nor the rejection of dependent claims 2-6. Apparatus claim 8
sets forth an arrangement of walls and transducer ports corresponding to the limitations of
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, nor claims 9-11, depending therefrom.
Instant claim 12, although drawn to a process, requires provision of wall and port
1
structures that have not been shown in Fatovic. We do not sustain the rejection of claim
12, nor the rejection of dependent claims 13-15.
Finally, we cannot sustain the section 103 rejection of claim 7 over Fatovic and
Baumhauer. Baumhauer is relied upon solely to show obviousness of using a "silicon type
1We note, however, that the word “cavity” should be added to the end of claim 12.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007