Appeal No. 95-1357
Application 07/965,427
forces to move the platform in one of two different directions.
Appellants further emphasize in the reply brief that neither
reference teaches the specific structure claimed of mounting two
magnets in fixed relationship to a base and two coils in fixed
relationship on a platform.
We note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites the following:
said first and said second magnet means being fixed
relative to each other on said base and said first and
said second cooperating magnet force generating means
being fixed relative to each other on said platform,
said first force applying means being positioned and
constructed to controllably apply selected forces to
said platform in one of said two different directions
and said second force applying means being constructed
and positioned to controllably apply selected forces to
said platform in the other of said two different
directions and control means to selectively control
said first and said second force applying means to
generate said selected forces.
Upon a careful review of Clark and Cadoz, we fail to find
that the references teach a controller having the above
limitations as recited in Appellants’ claim 1.
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion of modifying
Clark with the Cadoz magnetic force applying means to provide a
controller as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The Federal
Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007