Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
the sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued
in this court, even if it has been properly brought here by
reason of appeal is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”)
Analysis
At the outset, we note that Appellants have elected that
all the claims on appeal stand or fall together [brief, page
3]. We, however, treat the claims as their scope and the
Appellants’ arguments apply to the claims.
Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Ohnishi
We first consider claim 16. After our review of
Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 3 to 6], the Examiner’s
rejection [final rejection, pages 4 to 5] and the Examiner’s
response to Appellants’ arguments [answer, pages 3 to 4], we
agree with Appellants that Ohnishi does not anticipate the
claimed limitation of “a resonance frequency ... in the first
vibration mode being higher than the resonance frequency ...
in the second mode so that said relative moving member is
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007