Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
With respect to the rejection of claims 16, 19 and 21-24
based on Hinlein taken alone, the examiner acknowledges that
Hinlein is silent as to the step of measuring the resonance
characteristic of the load beam and subsequently adjusting one or
more of the mass balancing structures. The examiner finds,
however, that it would have been obvious to the artisan to have
adjusted the characteristics of the load beam after measuring
them initially in order to obtain the desired effects [answer,
pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that Hinlein does not establish a prima
facie case of obviousness because there is no teaching or
suggestion in Hinlein that the tabs are adjusted to modify the
resonance characteristics of the suspension. Appellant also
argues that the examiner has admitted that Hinlein does not teach
the steps of the claimed invention but asserts obviousness anyway
[brief, pages 7-9]. The examiner responds that the step of
measuring resonance characteristics would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan [answer, page 8].
We agree with appellant that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of independent
claim 16 based on Hinlein taken alone. Claim 16 recites specific
steps of measuring the resonance characteristic of the suspension
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007