Ex parte MORI et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-2871                                                        
          Application No. 08/565,989                                                  


               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1. An oscillation gyroscope comprising:                                
               an oscillator having at least two node points;                         
               at least two support members for supporting the                        
          oscillator close to the node points thereof, respectively; and              
               protective members disposed surrounding a periphery of                 
          the oscillator for preventing displacement of the oscillator                
          so that the support members are not plastically deformed.                   
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Choffat                       3,678,309                July  18,            
          1972                                                                        
          Nakamura et al. (Nakamura)    5,345,822                Sept. 13,            
          1994                                                                        
          Kasanami et al. (Kasanami)    5,349,857                Sept. 27,            
          1994                                                                        
          Nakamura et al. (Nakamura)    5,497,044                Mar.   5,            
          1996                                                                        
                                   (effective filing date Dec.  16,                   
          1993)                                                                       
               Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Kasanami, Nakamura ‘822 or Nakamura              
          ‘044 in view of Choffat.                                                    
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007