Ex parte IWABUCHI - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1996-4190                                                        
          Application 08/311,710                                                      

          in determining the propriety of the rejection is the                        
          interpretation given by the Examiner to the phrase “a magnet                
          fixed to said base for attracting said magnetic body and                    
          spaced apart from said magnetic body in a direction                         
          perpendicular to a plane containing said planar locus of                    
          points ...” (Claim 8).  The Examiner contends [answer, pages                
          10 and 11]:                                                                 
                    In marked up figure 4 of Sun et al. [copy                         
               attached to the brief], the plane is shown as a                        
               horizontal line.  Following the direction                              
               perpendicular to that line ... reveals the space                       
               defined by the two vertical lines and the magnetic                     
               body and the magnet are spaced apart in this                           
               direction ... .  In other words, the magnet and the                    
               magnetic body are not contacting each other in this                    
               direction.  There is space between them in this                        
               Appellant argues [brief, page 6]:                                      
                    [T]he magnet is fixed to a base and spaced apart                  
                    from the magnetic body in a direction                             
                    perpendicular to a plane containing the locus of                  
                    points through which a [sic, the] magnetic body                   
                    moves.  This results in the magnetic body being                   
                    able to move over the magnet.                                     
               We agree with the interpretation given by Appellant for                
          two reasons.  First, the interpretation by the Examiner is not              
          logical because the term “direction” defines a line, and not a              
          plane as the Examiner interprets it.  Therefore, the phrase                 

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007