Appeal No. 1998-2871
Application No. 08/565,989
references that the vibrating body of a vibrating gyroscope
should be supported at two node points.
If “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide protective members” in the primary
references in accordance with the teachings of Choffat
(Answer, page 3), then the protective members would have to be
located in the exact locations (i.e., at the two nodal points)
already occupied by the support members. Thus, in light of
the conflict between the teachings of the primary references
and the teachings of Choffat, and the uncertainty as to where
the protective members would be located in the primary
references, we agree with appellants’ arguments. In short,
the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 20 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007