Appeal No. 1998-2570
Application No. 08/381,156
discussed stuck mirror feature to the micromirror positioning
operation set forth in independent claim 15. As with
rejection of claims 13 and 14 discussed supra with respect to
the Nathanson reference, the Examiner has proposed a
modification of Sampsell with the deformable faceplate
configuration teachings of Schell. Notwithstanding the fact
that we find a similar lack of establishment by the Examiner
of proper motivation for combining Schell with Sampsell as we
did in the proposed combination with Nathanson, we also find
no disclosure in Schell which would overcome the innate
deficiencies discussed above with regard to Sampsell. Since
all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to appealed claims 18 and 19.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision
ofthe Examiner rejecting claims 13-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007