Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
The Examiner does not address this argument.
Kikuchi clearly does not disclose a "plurality of
sections that are spaced apart" in a Y direction like the
spaced apart strips 48 and 50 spaced apart by opening 46 in
Appellants' figure 1, much less sections spaced apart in a Y
direction joined by a brace. Accordingly, the Examiner erred
in finding claim 12 to be anticipated. The anticipation
rejection of claims 12, 13, and 18 over Kikuchi is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Aoyanagi
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10
The Examiner finds that "Figure 1 [of Aoyanagi] also
shows beam 2a defining a laterally extensive region of
perpendicular flexibility with laterally opposed sections of
the extensive region being attached to torsionally stiff
brace(s) 4 . . . which longitudinally divide the region of
perpendicular flexibility" (FR3; EA5). The Examiner states
that "[i]t is a curious situation as to why applicants state
that the opening (void) of Aoyanagi is not a laterally
extensive region of perpendicular flexibility when figure 1 of
the instant application shows opening 46 which defines the
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility as
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007