Appeal No. 96-2143
Application 08/046,056
Considering the noted teaching of Froeschle, in
particular, it is apparent to us that one having ordinary
skill in the art would have readily understood the modified
Froeschle system as encompassing an actuator or means capable
of opposing or sized to counter relatively small high
frequency forces, as now set forth in claims 1 and 9. Thus,
appellants’ argument alone simply does not persuade us that
the evidence of obviousness is deficient regarding the content
of claims 1 and 9. As to the argument addressed to claim 16
regarding a proof mass (main brief, page 8), we disagree with
appellants view that Froeschle, in partic-ular, would not have
been suggestive thereof. As we see it, the
permanent magnets of Froeschle (column 3, line 21) would
clearly have been suggestive of the broadly recited “proof
mass” of claim 16.6
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
We note appellant’s indication in the specification (page 4, lines 28,6
29) that the proof mass can be a separate mass, but is typically one or more
magnets of the actuator 21 (electromagnetic actuator).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007