Appeal No. 1998-0204
Application 08/501,542
103, and that claims 2 and 3 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of these
claims but we will reverse the rejection of claims 5, 10 and
14 on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have
indicated on page 10 of the brief the claims do not stand or
fall together. Appellants indicate that claims 1, 4, 6
through 9, 11 through 13 and 18 through 21 stand or fall
together, and that claim 22 stands or falls separately.
With respect to claim 1, representative of the group
of claims 1, 4, 6 through 9, 11 through 13 and 18 through 21,
the Examiner indicates that Sampietro teaches the claimed
invention with an inherent control means that operates the
actuator arm and the bucking coil simultaneously (35 U.S.C. §
102(e)). Alternatively, it would have been obvious for the
control means to operate the actuator arm and bucking coil
simultaneously (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Appellants argue that Sampietro does not provide
movement current to the actuator arm and bucking coil
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007