Appeal 2006-3333
Application 10/324,601
Appellant separately argues claims 1, 18, 29, 32, and 40. Accordingly,
we address Appellant’s arguments regarding those claims in our opinion
below.
OPINION
APPARATUS CLAIMS 1, 18, 29, AND 40
Claims 1, 18, and 29 are directed to “an air writing system” (i.e., an
apparatus) including, among other claimed features, a “wand.” Claim 40 is a
subcombination of the “system” claims and is directed to the “wand” alone.
Bryan’s Figure 1 embodiment is directed to a “toy water gun” (col.
55, ll. 64-65). Bryan’s toy water gun shown in Figure 1 has one housing
(10) that “contains a mixture having less than all the components necessary
for generating bioluminescence,” and a second housing (12) that “contains a
mixture having the remaining components [necessary for initiating
bioluminescence] or [housing 12 may contain] the remaining components,
save [i.e, except for] the bioluminescent activator” (col. 56, ll. 8-12). The
contents of housings 10 and 12 may be powdered, wherein water can be
added to the housings (10, 12) prior to use (col. 56, ll. 31-33). The user
presses trigger 14 to draw the contents of housings 10 and 12 into a mixing
chamber 20 where the contents of each of the housings (10, 12) are mixed
together (col. 56, ll. 15-28). Depending upon the contents of the housings
(10, 12), the mixture in chamber 20 either bioluminesces in chamber 20 (i.e.,
the activator is included in either housing 10 or 12) or upon expulsion from
the toy gun (i.e., the activator is air) (col. 56, ll. 29-31).
Appellant argues that Bryan does not disclose the following features
recited in claims 1, 18, 29, and 40: (1) “particle seeding subsystem . . . to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013