Appeal No. 1997-4050
Application 08/535,317
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
Claims 2, 10, 11, 28, 50-57 and 59
As to this rejection, appellants acknowledge at page 10 of
the brief that Hulsing teaches a transducer having a control means
to apply a caging force when the transducer is not in use (col. 5,
lines 49-52). It is argued that Hulsing is devoid of any teaching
of a second control means to apply a second force field for the
purpose of caging, calibrating, characterizing, and or effecting
compensation in association with the operation of the transducer.
The examiner’s position is to the effect that in view of
Hulsing, it would have been obvious to secure the mass 36 of
Henrion (Figure 13) by caging. The examiner acknowledges that
Hulsing cages by way of a magnetic field, not an electric field,
but argues it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an electric
field because it was well known in the art to use either an
electric or magnetic field to manipulate the relationship between
two objects.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument and will sustain
the rejection of claims 2, 10, 11, 28, 50-57 and 59. Appellants
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007