Appeal No. 95-2948
Application 07/833,664
Claims 18-22
Claim 18 does not recite the vibrating element has respective resonant frequencies
associated with each of the modes of vibration which are not integral multiples of each other as
in claim 1. Claim 18 recites a "deformable shaft" with "a vibrational input unit coupled to one end
of said deformable shaft" and "a reflection element coupled to the other end of said shaft." None
of the references disclose such a mounting arrangement for the vibrational input unit. Figures 6a
and 6b of Dvorkis shows the input unit, the magnet 156 and coil 158, disposed at the same end
of the deformable shaft, planar spring 150, as the reflector 154. The examiner provides no
reasoning why it would have been obvious to mount the vibrational input unit at the opposite end
from the reflector. In Bard, the whole bimorph element bends and thus Bard does not teach
mounting the vibrational input unit at the opposite end from the reflector. Again, the examiner
provides no reasoning why it would have been obvious to mount the vibrational input unit at the
opposite end from the reflector. We agree with the examiner that appellant's argument that "[t]he
prior art references fail to disclose or suggest numerous important limitations recited in claim 18"
is conclusory. However, inasmuch as the examiner has failed to discuss the limitations of claim
18 in any action and because we find the location of the vibrational input unit not taught by the
references we conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 18-22 is reversed.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007