Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
adjusting one or more of the mass balancing structures to
a second configuration to adjust the mass distribution of the
load beams as a function of the measured resonance
characteristic.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hinlein 5,003,420 Mar. 26, 1991
Budde SIR H1573 Aug. 06, 1996
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Hinlein. Claims 9, 11, 16-19 and 21-24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the
examiner offers Hinlein taken alone with respect to claims 16, 19
and 21-24, and Hinlein in view of Budde with respect to claims 9,
11, 17 and 18.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the prior art rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007