Appeal No. 95-2948
Application 07/833,664
and a need for such expert testimony has not been shown."). Those of ordinary skill in the art
must also be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references expressly
disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Claims 1-4
There are two limitations at issue in claim 1.
First, claim 1 recites "said vibrating element having respective resonant frequencies
associated with each of the modes of vibration which are not integral multiples of each other."
Dvorkis recites that the vibrating element in figure 4 (the assembly of spring 110 and spring 123)
vibrates at 200-800 Hz in the x direction (the resonant frequency of spring 110, column 8, lines
55-57) and 5-100 Hz in the y direction (typically below the resonant frequency of spring 128,
column 8, lines 57-58). The vibrating elements are driven at a discrete frequency within the
recited ranges, in one example 500 Hz in the x direction and 10 Hz in the y direction (column 8,
lines 48-51). Appellant argues that "[f]rom these broad ranges there is no teaching or suggestion
that the ratio of resonating frequencies not be integral multiples of each other" (Brief, page 7).
It is true that Dvorkis does not state that the resonant frequencies are not integral multiples.
However, since the ranges in Dvorkis encompass both integral multiples and non-integral multiples
and since it would be mere coincidence if one resonant frequency was an integral multiple of the
other, it is considered that the non-integral limitation of claim 1 is suggested by Dvorkis. It would
take special effort to design the vibrating elements with resonant frequencies that are integral
multiples, and so it is expected that the resonant frequencies are not integral multiples. In the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007