Ex parte GOTO - Page 8

            Appeal No. 95-2948                                                                                                     
            Application 07/833,664                                                                                                 

            said two modes to cause it to there by [sic, thereby] rotating [sic, rotate] said vibrating element                    
            in said at least two planes' as required by In re Donaldson, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994)"                          
            (Reply Brief, pages 1-2).  Appellant does not elaborate on this statement.  We find the coil 120                       
            and magnet 118 in Dvorkis to be equivalent under 35 U.S.C.  112, sixth paragraph, to appellant's                      
            disclosed piezoelectric drive source because it is a transducer that coverts electrical signals to                     
            mechanical translation and thus performs the same function in substantially the same way to get                        
            the same result.  It is noted that claim 1 does not recite where the "means for driving" is attached.                  
                    For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 1 would have                        
            been prima facie obvious.  The rejection of claim 1 is sustained.                                                      
                    With respect to claims 2-4, these claims define a separation between each harmonic of one                      
            resonant frequency of one mode of vibration and the resonant frequency of the other mode of                            
            vibration; that is, a range about one of the resonant frequencies into which the harmonic                              
            frequencies may not fall.  It is much less likely that these limitations will be satisfied by chance by                
            the structure in Dvorkis because it is no longer a matter of whether two points will happen to                         
            coincide, but whether a point will lie within a range.  The examiner states that the limitations                       
            involve a "trivial and obvious parameter variation with prior art range" (Examiner's Answer,                           
            page 3).  However, besides being the first time the examiner has commented on the limitations,                         
            the examiner fails to provide any rationale why the claimed limitations constitute a parameter that                    
            one skilled in the art would have sought to vary.  The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie                  
            case of obviousness.  The rejection of claims 2-4 is reversed.                                                         

                                                          - 8 -                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007