Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
Claims 16 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 over Yamaguchi
We first consider claim 16. Keeping in mind the
arguments by Appellants [brief, pages 6 to 8] and the
Examiner’s position [final rejection, page 5 to 6 and answer,
pages 3 to 4], we conclude that Yamaguchi does neither
anticipate nor suggest the recited 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 driven in a stable state.” We find
that Yamaguchi clearly states (col. 2, lines 58 to 65) that
“the first piezoelectric body 22 is caused to vibrate ... [at]
the specified frequency f. []. Next, the second piezoelectric
bodies 23a and 23b are caused to vibrate ... [at] specified
frequency f.” We find no teaching in Yamaguchi that would
anticipate or suggest a stable operation of the actuator where
the longitudinal and the torsional frequency
were not equal. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 16 over Yamaguchi under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103.
With respect to claims 17 to 22, they are treated as one
group in accordance with Appellants’ election. We consider
claim 17 as representative of the group. Claim 17, as we
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007