Appeal No. 2001-2407
Application No. 09/154,703
Yamaguchi.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning, first, to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
112, first and second paragraphs, it is the examiner’s position
that it is unclear what constitutes the “integrating structure”
in this claim. Moreover, the examiner refers to the Figure 3
embodiment and states that this embodiment shows an actuator
attached to the suspension using adhesive. Accordingly, the
examiner contends that there is no disclosure of utilizing some
additional structure between the actuator and suspension. Thus,
the examiner contends that there is no disclosure, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for some structure
other than an adhesive between actuator and suspension.
Alternatively, the examiner argues, the claim is indefinite under
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for failing to clearly indicate
the structure used between the actuator and suspension.
The inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is
whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007