Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
At the outset, we note that of the claims on appeal,
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 10 and 15 have the recited limitation
of “without the use of a reflector above said object.”
Claims 3, 16 and 17 and 15 do not have the limitation of
“without the use of a reflector above said object.”
The examiner and appellant disagree regarding the
presence of this limitation being disclosed by Barmatz ‘823.
The examiner asserts (final rejection at pages 2-8, and answer
at page 4) that the means of levitation in the device of
Barmatz ‘823 is identical to that of the applicant. The
examiner continues that “[l]evitation is achieved without use
of a reflector as noted in the examiner’s response to
applicant’s remarks” (final rejection at page 5). Appellant
argues, brief at page 5, that “nowhere in Barmatz ‘823 is it
taught or suggested that the main reflector can be removed,
which indeed would be antithetical to the core teachings of
the reference since Barmatz is a resonant system. By way of
contrast, the instant claims specifically indicate that the
object is levitated ‘without the use of a reflector above said
object.’ This limitation in the claims reflects the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007