Appeal No. 2002-0747 Page 3
Application No. 09/006,982
(6) Claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watt in view of
Spengler.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 20) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 19) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1
An apparatus for delivering air-borne substances, comprising:
a structure comprising a chamber, wherein said chamber defines
an axis of air flow;
an air flow device at a first end of said chamber for introducing air
and flowing air substantially along said axis;
a plurality of pulsatile delivery devices positioned at said first end of
said chamber such that the actuation of said devices emits an air-borne
substance substantially along said axis; and
an actuator in communication with said delivery devices for
selective actuation thereof;
wherein:
said pulsatile delivery devices are positioned within a plurality of
cassettes; or
. said axis of air flow is substantially perpendicular to the forces of
gravity and said apparatus can be rotated about said axis of air flow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007