Appeal No. 1999-1538
Application 08/661,733
Representative claim 5 is reproduced below:
5. An object-lens driving device for an optical pickup, comprising: a driving portion
body having an object lens mounted thereon; an electromagnetic circuit attached to said
driving portion body, including a fine pattern coil having a tracking coil and a focusing coil
formed on a common plane; a supporting mechanism which supports said driving portion
body; and a holder for mounting said supporting mechanism;
wherein said supporting mechanism includes a plurality of plate spring members,
one end portion of each of said plate spring members being mounted to said holder, and
an opposite end portion of each of said plate spring members being fixed to said driving
portion body, for being elastically deformed either vertically or horizontally, and
further wherein said holder includes a plurality of protrusions which protrude
vertically from said holder, and wherein each of said plate spring members includes a
combining hole formed therein for receiving a corresponding one of said protrusions.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Narumi 4,927,235 May 22, 1990
Ikegame et al. (Ikegame) 5,579,176 Nov. 26, 1996
(filing date Apr. 29, 1994)
Beginning at page 7 of appellants’ principal brief on appeal, they complain that the
examiner has improperly relied upon Ikegame in the final rejection in that it has not been
utilized in the statement of the rejection. The examiner reopened prosecution in a paper
dated April 17, 1998, in which he formally relied upon the combined teachings of Narumi
and Ikegame to assert unpatentability within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claims 5-10 on appeal.
Appellants filed a supplemental appeal brief on July 16, 1998. The answer responds to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007