Appeal No. 1996-4190
Application 08/311,710
“in a direction perpendicular to a plane” means it is along a
line which is perpendicular to the plane of locus of the
movement of the magnetic body, i.e., along a vertical line.
Thus, if the locus plane is horizontal, the claim calls for
the magnet and the magnetic body to be located in two
different horizontal planes which are spaced apart in the
vertical direction. Secondly, the disclosure [figures 2A, 2B
and 5 through 9] clearly shows that the magnet and the
magnetic body are located in two separate horizontal planes,
vertically spaced apart, such that the magnetic body does not
physically come in contact with the magnet as it moves in its
horizontal plane. Looking at the applied prior art, neither
Sun nor Stefansky meets this “spaced apart...” limitation of
claim 8. Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 8, and its dependent claim 9, over Sun or
Stefansky.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 10 to 15 are rejected as being obvious over Sun or
Stefansky.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007