Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
Mishiro also discloses (col. 5, lines 31 to 38) that ”[i]t has
been difficult to make the respective resonant frequencies of
the longitudinal vibration and the torsional vibration ... to
coincide with each other, therefore, it has been difficult to
generate a well controlled composite vibration” (emphasis
added). We find that Mishiro therefore manipulates the
physical dimensions of element 33 to assure that the two
frequencies coincide and a stable operation is achieved; see
also figure 8 and col. 6, lines 3 to 16. Therefore, even
though Mishiro in part teaches a conventional actuator with
the two different frequencies, Mishiro fails to teach the
recited limitation that “said relative moving member is driven
in a stable state.” Independent claim 24 contains a
corresponding limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 16, 24 to 28, and 30 over
Mishiro.
Regarding claim 17, we reach a different conclusion.
Claim 17 calls for the torsional and the longitudinal
frequencies to be equal to each other, or one greater than the
other, and still have the actuator operate in a stable state.
From our discussion above regarding claim 16 and Mishiro, it
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007