Appeal 2006-3333
Application 10/324,601
luminescent particles” and (2) “tracing a visible path through the airborne
field using a wand” (Br. 19-20).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s finding that claim 32 is anticipated
by Bryan.
We understand Appellant to be arguing that the method recited in
claim 32 requires a sequential two-step process (Br. 19-20). The first step
recites “creating an airborne field of luminescent particles using a particle
generator . . ..” The second step sequentially follows the first step and
includes “tracing a visible path through said field by using a wand that
changes an intensity of at least some of said airborne luminescent particles
by causing a chemical reaction.”
Bryan’s Figure 1 water gun embodiment does not disclose a two-step
process that includes “creating an airborne field of luminescent particles”
and “tracing a visible path through the field by using a wand” (emphasis
added). Rather, Bryan’s Figure 1 embodiment mixes the luminescent
particles and activator to create a field of luminescent particles when the
water gun is fired, but omits Appellant’s second step of tracing a visible path
through the field of luminescent particles (Bryan: col. 55, ll. 65-67, col. 56,
ll. 1-46).
Based on Appellant’s arguments and Bryan’s disclosure regarding the
Figure 1 embodiment, we find that Bryan fails to disclose Appellant’s two-
step method recited in claim 32.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 32
and dependent claims 35-39 over Bryan.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013