Appeal 2007-2179
Application 10/247,825
For these reasons, Appellant is incorrect in believing that an artisan
would not have combined the applied reference teachings to thereby obtain
the apparatus defined by independent claim 8. Likewise, Appellant is
incorrect in believing dependent claims 9, 10, and 12 to be nonobvious.
Both Landau (col. 9, ll. 65-66) and Wang (col. 16, ll. 41-42) teach that their
vibrating devices are capable of producing vibration frequencies within the
audio frequency range (i.e., 10-20 KHz; Specification 28, last full para.) as
required by dependent claim 9, thereby evincing obviousness with respect to
this claim feature. Disposing the induction coil outside the tank section as
required by dependent claim 10 would have been obvious since this
disposition for a vibrating device is expressly taught by Landau (see
vibrational agitation member 82 in Fig. 2) and Wang (see vibration inducing
device 702 in Fig. 3B). Finally, the capability of varying amplitude and
frequency required dependent claim 12 would have been obvious because
variation across a range of amplitudes and frequencies is taught by both
Landau (col. 9, l. 62-col. 10, l. 18; col. 16, ll. 53-60) as well as Wang (col.
15, ll. 36-37).
We hereby sustain, therefore, the Section 103 rejections of all
appealed claims as being unpatentable over either Landau or Wang in view
of Ikeda.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013