Appeal 2006-3333
Application 10/324,601
create a buoyant field of . . . luminescent particles” (claim 1), “a particle
generator configured to create an airborne field of luminescent particles”
(claims 18 and 40) or “means for creating an airborne field” (claim 29), (2)
“a source of activating agent for changing the luminance of some of the
luminescent particles” by “causing a chemical reaction” (claims 1, 18 and
40) or “means for changing a visual intensity of at least some airborne
luminescent particles” (claim 29) and (3) a “wand” for writing in the field of
luminescent particles (claims 1, 18 and 29) (Br. 13-18, 20-21).
With regard to feature (1) above, Appellant argues that the Bryan
Figure 1 water gun embodiment ejects a liquid stream (Br. 14, 15, 17, and
21). Appellant contends that because the stream is liquid it consists of a
continuum of particles and the stream cannot create a buoyant field of
particles (Br. 14, 15, 17, 21).
With regard to feature (2) above, Appellant argues that Bryan’s Figure
1 embodiment discloses mixing the two components together in the body of
the water gun so that “luminescence begins either upon mixing of the
components or as the mixed composition contacts the air upon expulsion
from the toy gun” (Br. 14, 16, 18, 21). Based on this disclosure, Appellant
contends that Bryan does not disclose or suggest “any means for changing
the luminance of particles” within a buoyant or airborne field (Br. 14, 16,
21). Regarding claim 29, Appellant contends that Bryan does not disclose
any “means for changing the visual intensity of luminescent particles within
an airborne field” (Br. 18).
With regard to feature (3) above, Appellant argues that Bryan’s Figure
1 embodiment outputs a stream of liquid when the trigger of the gun is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013