Appeal No. 2001-2238
Application 09/387,204
does not teach that the spatial wavelength is a result effective
variable and does not teach the optimization goal of the present
invention. Appellants also argue that the applied prior art does
not teach that there is any need to control movement of one of
the surfaces in the z-direction. In other words, appellants
argue that the prior art is only concerned with movement in the
x-y plane. Appellants argue that the examiner has pointed to
nothing in the applied prior which supports the finding of
obviousness [brief, pages 6-15].
The examiner responds that the artisan would have
understood that the spacing between the electrodes of Okamoto
would affect the electric fields which drive the actuator. The
examiner insists that appellants have merely optimized the
spacing of the electrodes to obtain the most productive output of
the motor. The examiner also points to teachings of Suematsu (JP
5-122948) and Sato (JP 2-211078)1 [answer, pages 5-11].
We will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17
because the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. We essentially agree with all of the arguments
1 We have not considered the teachings of Suematsu or Sato
because neither of these references has been listed in the
statement of the rejection.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007