Appeal No. 1997-0367
Application No. 08/321,581
reference to various drawing figure diagrams (Answer, page 3)
in Ueda and Miyazawa with no indication as to how these
various figures would correspond to any of the claimed
features. As such, we are left to speculate as to the
Examiner’s line of reasoning that would lead to the conclusion
of anticipation.
Appellants’ initial argument in response (Brief, page 15)
asserts the deficiency of Ueda and Miyazawa in disclosing the
claimed feature of generating both a driving wave to vibrate
the vibrating member to drive the movable member and a halting
wave to vibrate the vibrating member to halt the movable
member, a feature present in both of the independent claims 4
and 22.
After careful independent review of the Ueda and Miyazawa
references in light of the arguments of record, we agree with
Appellants’ stated position in the Briefs. We find no clear
disclosure in either of the applied prior art references that
would suggest the generation of a halting wave which would be
effective to halt a movable member of an ultrasonic motor. In
addition, we agree with Appellants’ further assertion (Brief,
page 16) that the positional relationship of the projections
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007