Appeal No. 2002-2130
Application No. 09/483,647
vacillating the atomized liquid flow
predominately non-parallel to a direction of the
moving article;
depositing the vacillating atomized liquid flow
on the moving article.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Haynes et al. (Haynes) 5,652,048 Jul. 29, 1997
Kwok et al. (Kwok) 5,904,298 May 18, 1999
Claims 26-34 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kwok in view of Haynes.
On page 2 of Paper No. 6, the examiner has objected to
claim 34 as being of improper dependent form for failing to
further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. However,
on page 3 of the answer, the examiner indicates that this
objection is not an appealable issue. Upon return of this
application to the jurisdiction of the examiner, both the
appellant and the examiner should resolve this issue.
For the reason set forth below, we reverse the rejection of
record.
OPINION
Appellant’s claim 26 is directed to a liquid atomization
method comprising forming an atomized liquid flow adjacent a
moving article by drawing a liquid with continuous fluid flows
directed along substantially opposite sides of the liquid,
vacillating the atomized liquid flow predominately non-parallel
to a direction of the moving article, and depositing the
vacillating atomized liquid flow on the moving article.[emphasis
added].
Beginning on page 6 of the brief, appellant argues that
Kwok is directed to dispensing fiberized filaments from nozzles.
Appellant argues that Haynes discloses the use of alternating
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007