Appeal 2006-2381
Application 09/779,125
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (2004).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Egan US 4,159,876 Jul. 3, 1979
Pettit US 4,669,040 May 26, 1987
Okumoto US 5,104,220 Apr. 14, 1992
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest controlling
indicial response characteristics of the heating control means in units of
milliseconds when the tube is heated by the heating control means as
claimed (Br. 4; emphasis added). According to Appellant, a control in units
of milliseconds is not an obvious extension of a control in units of seconds
as in the prior art. Appellant emphasizes that since atomization usually ends
in about one second, a control in units of seconds would be of little use (Br.
4-5; Reply Br. 1-2).
The Examiner argues that the skilled artisan would have known that a
compensating time constant of 1-5 seconds disclosed in Egan is equivalent
to 1000-5000 milliseconds. According to the Examiner, the skilled artisan
would therefore recognize that the heating control means may operate in and
display units of milliseconds instead of seconds (Answer 8-9).
We affirm.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013