Appeal No. 2001-2271 Page 3
Application No. 08/971,839
electrical energy . . . into ultrasound energy in the form of acoustic waves . . .
establishing the acoustic field within the water treatment zone” (specification, page 3).
“Fish eggs and/or larvae . . . [are] exposed during experimental treatment to the . . .
acoustical field within [the treatment] zone [ ] by placement into [an acoustically
transparent] test tube . . . mixed with a body of seawater [ ] having [the biological] agent
[ ] dissolved therein” (id., page 4). According to appellants, “treatment [is] maximized by
passage of a continuous flow of water from a coolant supply [ ] to maintain the body of
seawater . . . [at] a predetermined constant temperature” (id.).
DISCUSSION
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Zohar
and Heat Systems Ultrasonics, and claims 3-5, 8, 12, 13 and 15 as unpatentable over
Zohar, Heat Systems Ultrasonics, Monaghan and Mohler. Initially we note appellants’
statement on page 3 of the Brief that claims 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11 “form one group of
claims” and claims 3-5, 8, 13 and 15 “form yet another group.” Therefore, we shall limit
our consideration of the issues raised by this appeal as they pertain to claim 1 as
representative of the first group - thus claims 2, 7, 10 and 11 will stand or fall with claim
1; and claim 3 as representative of the second group - thus claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13 and 15
will stand or fall with claim 3. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1999).
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11
Claim 1 is directed to a method of treating aquatic animals by infusing an agent
dissolved in a body of water in a treatment zone into the tissues of the animals, wherein
an acoustic field is established within the treatment zone for a limited time, during which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007