Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
anticipated and we find no other way the rejection can be
sustained. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7,
9, and 10 over Aoyanagi is reversed.
Claims 12, 16, and 19
Appellants argue that Aoyanagi does not teach "said beam
being flexible in a plurality of sections that are spaced
apart in said X and Y directions and joined by a brace
extending in said Y direction," as recited in claim 12.
The Examiner does not address this argument.
Aoyanagi discloses a press bending portion 9 which
extends across the width of the press spring 2a. Thus,
Aoyanagi does not teach a plurality of flexible sections
spaced apart in the Y direction and joined by a brace. The
Examiner erred in finding claim 12 to be anticipated. The
anticipation rejection of claims 12, 16, and 19 over Aoyanagi
is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kohso
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11
The Examiner finds that beam 3 in figure 5 defines a
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility with
- 13 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007