Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
defined by applicants' specification" (FR8). The Examiner
further states that "not unlike appellants['] claimed and
disclosed invention, Aoyanagi torsionally supports the
flexible spring 2a by way of reinforcement plates or
torsionally stiff braces to enable a vibration-proof property
of spring 2a" (EA9-10).
Appellants argue that a void has no solid matter, and
thus cannot have flexibility (Br11). It is argued that the
opening can increase the perpendicular flexibility of a hinge
region, such as 66 in figure 3, but would not create a
perpendicularly flexible region if formed in the area between
vertical flanges 40 and 42 in figure 1 (Br11). It is argued
that because of the reinforcement plate 4, "Aoyanagi does not
have a laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility
divided by a brace as defined in claim 1" (Br12).
We agree with Appellants' arguments and find the
Examiner's findings and reasons unpersuasive. Aoyanagi
teaches a "press bending part (9) of said press spring (2a)"
(translation, p. 3), which we find is "said beam defining a
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility." The
"[r]einforcement plate (4) . . . is provided at the areas
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007