Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
is clear that Mishiro does show that an actuator would operate
in a stable state when the longitudinal and the torsional
frequencies are made equal. Therefore, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 17 over Mishiro.
Claims 24 to 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Ohnishi
After our review of Appellants’ position [brief, pages 12
to 13 and reply brief, pages 1 to 3] and the Examiner’s
position [final rejection, page 8 and answer, pages 3 to 4],
we agree with Appellants that, for the reasons above regarding
16 and Ohnishi, Ohnishi does not make obvious the claimed
features of claim 24, particularly, the limitation of “the
resonance frequency of ... torsional vibration ... being
higher than the resonance frequency of said ... longitudinal
vibration ... so that said relative moving member is driven in
a stable state.” Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 24 and its dependent claims 25 to 28, and
30 over Ohnishi.
In summary, we have sustained the anticipation rejection
of claims 17 by Ohnishi, claims 17 to 22 by Yamaguchi
(including the alternative obviousness rejection), and claim
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007