Appeal No. 1997-3029
Application 08/416,526
[answer, page 2]. As the declaration [paper no. 16] shows,
via a result of the finite element analysis of the stresses
and strains in the modified Elbert's device (most similar to
the claimed device), the stresses caused by simply changing
the length of Elbert's device to one-half wavelength cause
unequal forces within the device and yield a non-uniform
sealing surface. Such an uneven surface will be unsuitable as
a sealing surface, see figures 5 and 6 of the declaration. It
appears to us that an appropriate reaction body has to be
provided for assimilating counter forces from the drive unit
to produce an appropriate nodal plane. Moreover, the nodal
plane is claimed to be located below the drive unit to achieve
a uniform and even sealing surface. The Examiner has not
produced any evidence, or a line of reasoning, to show us how
an artisan would have been able to take Elbert’s device and
reduce it to the claimed one-half wavelength total length in
view of the teachings of McMaster or Shoh. Neither McMaster
or Shoh encounters the problem of unequal forces in his
device, as it is designed for only spot welding or sealing,
and not for long and narrow welding or sealing. Thus, they do
not disclose the need for the claimed reaction body and,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007