Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
the vibrating member” (emphasis added), a controller, and an
actuator on the vibration confinement device to adjust at least
one of the effective translational spring constant, and the
effective torsional spring constant in response to a confinement
device control signal generated by the controller. Although the
language of claim 22 is somewhat different than that used in
claim 12, it is clear to us that this claim likewise is directed
to a combination of an apparatus and the structure. A review of
the other claims on appeal reveals that they too are directed to
a combination of an apparatus for confining vibrational energy
and a structure having a vibrating member.
As for the examiner’s second concern that appellant has used
different language in some of the claims to set forth “a
vibration confinement device” (e.g., as in claims 12 and 31) and
“an active vibration confinement device” (as in claims 17, 22, 24
and 34), we see nothing wrong in this. Claims 12 and 31 are
merely broader than claims 17, 22, 24 and 34, in that claims 12
and 31 are generic, reading on either a passive vibration
confinement device or an active vibration confinement device
(both of which are disclosed in appellant’s application). As
urged by appellant on page 7 of the brief, the examiner has
incorrectly determined that claim 12 recites only a passive
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007