Appeal No. 2003-0468 Page 8
Application No. 09/447,752
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
independent claim 4 and dependent 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Bair is affirmed.
In our view, the examiner's quoted statements above regarding the claimed
pressure pulse rise time and frequency does not provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that Bair's pumping chamber is
inherently capable of producing pressure pulses with either a pressure pulse rise time
of between 1 gram/second and 50,000 grams/second or a frequency of between 1 Hz
and 200 Hz. With regard to the pressure pulse rise time, Bair specifically teaches
(column 3, lines 50-51) that the pressure versus time profile of each pulse approaches
a rectangular waveform. Thus, the pressure pulse rise time may exceed 50,000
grams/second and therefore a pressure pulse rise time of between 1 gram/second and
50,000 grams/second is not a natural result flowing from the operation as taught by
Bair. With regard to the pressure pulse frequency, Bair specifically teaches (column 4,
lines 21-25) that after one high pressure fluid jet pulse is completed the apparatus is set
to deliver another pulse, however, the actuating valve must be reopened to initiate
another pulse, and accordingly the pumping mechanism is not free-running. Thus,
5 The appellants have grouped claims 4 and 5 as standing or falling together (brief, p. 2).
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claim 5 falls with claim 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007