Appeal No. 95-0181
Application 08/012,401
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 3.
According to the examiner (final rejection, page 3),
"[i]t is common engineering practice to change a dimension of a
component to change its resonance frequency," and "[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to size the diaphragm to raise its
resonance frequency to safe levels."
We agree with appellant's argument (Brief, page 4)
that:
[T]here is no mention or recognition
whatsoever in Kodama of the problem of
preventing resonant sympathetic
vibrations due to oscillations of a
pressure being detected, or of solving
the problem by configuring and
dimensioning a flexible metal diaphragm
to have a resonance frequency above the
oscillation frequency range of the
pressure to be detected. This is the
problem which is addressed and solved by
the present invention and the problem
which Kodama fails to even mention
(emphasis in original).
Appellant is correct when he argues (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007