Appeal No. 1998-2871
Application No. 08/565,989
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 20 is
reversed.
The examiner’s rejection states (Answer, page 3):
Kasamani [sic, Kasanami] (figs. 24-27), Nakamura
(044) (figs. 4-7) and Nakamura (822) teach the
oscillating gyroscope except for protective members
surrounding the oscillator to prevent breakage due
to over-stress of the element. However, Choffat
explicitly teaches providing protective members,
shaped to the oscillator, for preventing over-stress
of the element. Thus, for at least this reason, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide protective members to Kasanami or
Nakamura (822) or (044).
Appellants argue (Brief, page 3) that the combination of
the primary references along with Choffat would teach away
from the claimed invention because Choffat teaches that the
vibrating piezoelectric quartz blade “should be suspended,
i.e., supported, at only a single nodal point” because
supporting the blade “at two nodal points is disadvantageous”
(column 1, lines 6 through 20). According to appellants
(Brief, pages 3 and 4), the skilled artisan would not have
made the combination in light of the teachings of the primary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007