Ex parte IWABUCHI - Page 6

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

          “in a direction perpendicular to a plane” means it is along a               
          line which is perpendicular to the plane of locus of the                    
          movement of the magnetic body, i.e., along a vertical line.                 
          Thus, if the locus plane is horizontal, the claim calls for                 
          the magnet and the magnetic body to be located in two                       
          different horizontal planes which are spaced apart in the                   
          vertical direction.  Secondly, the disclosure [figures 2A, 2B               
          and 5 through 9] clearly shows that the magnet and the                      
          magnetic body are located in two separate horizontal planes,                
          vertically spaced apart, such that the magnetic body does not               
          physically come in contact with the magnet as it moves in its               
          horizontal plane.  Looking at the applied prior art, neither                
          Sun nor Stefansky meets this “spaced apart...” limitation of                
          claim 8.  Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation                     
          rejection of claim 8, and its dependent claim 9, over Sun or                
                          Rejections under 35 U.S.C.  103                            
               Claims 10 to 15 are rejected as being obvious over Sun or              
               As a general proposition in an appeal involving a                      
          rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103, an Examiner is under a burden              

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007