Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
except press bending part (9) of said press spring (2a)"
(translation, p. 3). The press spring 2a/reinforcement
plate 4 assembly in figure 1 of Aoyanagi is clearly intended
to bend only at the press bending part 9. The area of press
spring 2a covered by the reinforcement plate 4 is designed to
be inflexible because it reinforces and prevents resonance of
the press spring 2a. The edges of the plate 4 act like
flanges 40 and 42 in Appellants' figure 1 to prevent
perpendicular flexibility; for this reason, the Examiner erred
in finding that the portion of press spring 2a covered by
reinforcement plate 4 includes a region of perpendicular
flexibility. Since plate 4 comes up to the press bending
portion 9 at the opposed edges, and is considered torsionally
stiff because it is intended to prevent tilt (translation,
p. 2), Aoyanagi shows "laterally opposed sections of said
region [of perpendicular flexibility] being attached to a
torsionally stiff brace." However, Aoyanagi does not disclose
"said brace longitudinally dividing said region of
perpendicular flexibility," as recited in claim 1, because the
brace is only on one side of the press bending portion 9.
Therefore, the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 to be
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007