Appeal No. 2001-2238
Application 09/387,204
made by appellants. Most importantly, we agree with appellants’
argument that the claimed invention involves more than the mere
optimization of a result effective variable. The applied prior
art only teaches that the force acting in the x-y plane should be
controlled. The applied prior art shows no interest in the
forces which also act in the z-plane. It is only appellants’
disclosure which teaches that the forces in the z-plane need to
be controlled based on new applications of electrostatic
actuators. Only appellants’ disclosure teaches that there is a
limit on the value of the wavelength/spacing condition which
allows electrostatic actuators to be used for these new
applications. The prior art tends to suggest that the
wavelength/spacing condition can be increased to whatever extent
desired. Only appellants’ disclosure teaches that this condition
has an upper limit of about 16. If this condition optimizes
anything, then it only optimizes a variable that has been
essentially irrelevant until now. Therefore, the examiner has
failed to support his position that the claimed invention
involves nothing more than the mere optimization of a result
effective variable.
Since the remaining claims subject to this rejection
depend from claim 17, we also do not sustain the rejection of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007