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
direction.
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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007