Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
of claim 16 over Iijima.
However, claim 17 recites that the longitudinal and the
torsional frequencies may be equal to, or different from, each
other and a stable operation prevails in both cases. We have
found above that Iijima does show that a stable operation of
the actuator will be achieved when the two frequencies are
made equal. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 17 and its grouped claims 18 to 22 over Iijima.
Claims 16, 17, 24 to 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Mishiro
Since the scope of independent claim 17 is different from
the scope of each of the independent claims 16 and 24, we will
treat claim 17 separately. We first treat claim 16. Claim 16
calls for one of the resonance frequencies of the longitudinal
and the torsional vibration to be higher than the other and
still enable the actuator to operate in a stable state.
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 10 to 12], we
agree with the Examiner [final rejection, pages 7 to 8] that
Mishiro, at col.5, lines 16 to 30, shows that a conventional
actuator could have one frequency higher than the other (21.3
vs 13.2 kHz). However, on the other hand, we find that
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007