Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
noted above in our discussion regarding claim 17 and Ohnishi,
recites the relationship of the longitudinal and the torsional
frequencies as the two being equal, or one being greater than
the other. We find that Yamaguchi does clearly disclose, as
noted above regarding claim 16 and Yamaguchi, a stable
operation of the actuator when the two frequencies are the
same. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 and its
grouped claims 18 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 over
Yamaguchi.
Claims 16 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iijima
Since independent claims 16 and 17 are of different
scope, we treat them separately. We take claim 16 first.
Claim 16, inter alia, requires that the torsional and the
longitudinal frequencies be of different magnitude and still
the actuator should operate in a stable manner. Contrary to
the Examiner’s assertions, Iijima does not show or suggest
that feature. In fact, Iijima states that “the resonance
frequency fL of the longitudinal vibration and the resonance
frequency fB [of the torsional vibration] ... are
substantially equal to each other ...” (col. 5, lines 11 to
16). Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007