Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
discloses a flex frame with cross section dimensions which meet
the stiffness criteria recited in claim 1.
The appellant in the specification at page 8 states
that as the driving member was rotated the stiffness exhibited by
a Wirth flex frame to the defection imposed on it varied with the
rotational angle of the coupling. In fact, appellant states that
a coupling made of identical rectangular flex frames with long
legs thinner than short legs as disclosed in Wirth is more non-
uniform than a similar coupling made of four identical flex
flames with long and short legs of equal thickness.
(Specification at pages 8-9). The examiner has not advanced any
technical reasons why this analysis of the appellant is in error.
The examiner, in explaining the rejection under 35 USC
§ 102(b) of claims 1-6 and 18-21 as being anticipated by Wirth
states that:
Since Wirth includes all of the structure
that has been set forth in the claims, the
required ratios of stiffness of the members
are also inherently met since no specific
structure has been set forth that defines how
these stiffness are defined.
We do not agree that the structure set forth that defines the
stiffness is not defined. The appellant on pages 9 through 32 of
his specification defines the structure and how the dimensions
are determined.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007