Appeal 2006-3333 Application 10/324,601 luminance change (Bryan: col. 56, ll. 8-12). Additionally, Bryan discloses air may be the bioluminescence activator to cause at least some of the luminescent particles to change in luminance upon expulsion of the water/luminescent particle mixture from the toy gun (Bryan: col. 56, ll. 30- 31). The ejected water/luminescent particle stream is buoyant as it moves through the air as previously discussed. Therefore, Bryan’s Figure 1 embodiment (i.e., the toy water gun) is capable of “changing a luminance of some of said luminescent particles within said buoyant [or airborne] field.” Regarding Appellant’s feature (3) (i.e., the “wand” feature), Appellant argues that Bryan’s water gun (i.e., wand) outputs a stream of liquid such that “Bryan does not disclose using the water gun to write in a buoyant field of luminescent particles” (emphasis added) (Br. 15). By Appellant’s own words, he does not dispute the structure of the water gun (i.e., wand), but rather how the water gun (i.e., wand) is being used (i.e., its method of use). We find that Bryan’s water gun structure is inherently capable of writing in a buoyant field. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. For example, if the gun is positioned to shoot directly upward, an uppercase letter “I” or lowercase “l” would be formed. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of argued claims 1, 18, 29, and 40 and non-argued claims 9, 10, 13-17, 24-28, 30, and 31 over Bryan. METHOD CLAIM 32 Appellant argues that Bryan does not disclose a method having the following steps required by claim 32: (1) “creating an airborne field of 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013