Appeal No. 1999-2703
Application No. 08/772,068
instant claimed invention, Hamaguchi anticipates the instant
claimed subject matter.
Appellant argues the advantages of the instant invention
and refers to the many examples in the specification and to
the tables at pages 14-15 of the specification in order to
show the differences between the instant invention and the
prior art. However, such arguments and objective evidence are
irrelevant to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. No matter
what advantages are achieved by the instant disclosed
invention, the language of the instant claimed invention is
met, and hence anticipated, by the disclosure of Hamaguchi.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is sustained.
We will not, however, sustain the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because that claim specifically calls
for “a gimbal spring.” The examiner identifies spring 12 in
Hamaguchi as such a spring. However, the spring in Hamaguchi,
identified by the reference as a “flexible beam,” is not a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007