Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
not agree with the appellant’s interpretation that the bottom
of the object is defined when the object is levitating. The
claim simply calls for “placing said object having said flat
bottom above a surface of the vibrator....” A reasonable
interpretation of this language is that the object does have a
flat bottom but the orientation of the flat bottom is not
specifically defined. As such, Barmatz ‘823 alone in Figure
1a shows a levitating object 12b having a flat bottom even
though the bottom is not in the orientation alleged to be
recited in the claim by appellant. Moreover, Rey discloses at
column 3, lines 19-22, that the object levitated may be solid
or liquid of any shape and will have a size less than the size
of the surface of the reflector. From this teaching, we find
that an artisan would have been motivated to levitate in
Barmatz ‘823 objects of different shapes including an object
having a flat bottom. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 15 over Barmatz ‘823 in view of Rey.
In conclusion, we have sustained the obviousness
rejection of claim 15 over Barmatz ‘823 in view of Rey; while
we have not sustained the obviousness rejection of claims 1
and 10 over Barmatz ‘823 and Rey; of claims 2, 4, 5, and 7-9
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007