Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
fundamental difference in the operational principal as between
the invention and Barmatz.”
We agree with appellant’s position. We have looked at
the various embodiments of the levitating device in Barmatz
‘823, and, like appellant, we have not found any embodiment
which does not require the use of a reflector for its
operation. The examiner relies on Barmatz alone for the
teaching of a levitating device operating without the use of a
reflector above said object. The other references used by the
examiner in rejecting various claims rely on different
combinations of the references for teachings other than the
one recited above and do not cure this deficiency of Barmatz
‘823. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 and 10 over Barmatz ‘823 and Rey; of claims 2, 4,
5, and 7-9 over Barmatz ‘823, Rey and Danley.
With respect to claim 3, the limitation “without the use
of a reflector above said object” is not recited. However,
claim 3 calls for “a traveling device ... comprises an air
flowing device that blows air onto said object ....” The
examiner uses Murphy for the teaching of a traveling means by
blowing air over the levitated object. See final rejection at
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007