Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the answer (Paper No. 36, mailed
September 25, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 35, filed
June 16, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate their
intention that all of the claims being rejected stand together
(brief, page 5) and merely present arguments for each ground of
rejection. Therefore, we address each ground of rejection
separately and limit our review to claims 59, 60 and claim 58,
which is the representative claim of its corresponding group.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 58
and 61-64 over Hyde and Yaginuma, Appellants argue that Hyde
discloses only four slits whereas the claimed configuration, as
depicted in Appellants’ Figure 7, has six slits (brief, page 6).
Appellants further point out that the claimed U-shaped holes may
be equivalent to the two slits formed immediately above and below
the gimbal spring 49 of Hyde (Figure 4) whereas the U-shaped
slits of Hyde can be considered equivalent to the claimed pair of
slits (id.). Appellants assert that Hyde does not show any V-
shaped holes formed outside of the two U-shaped holes and the two
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007