Appeal 2007-0592
Application 10/263,001
1 STATEMENT OF CASE
2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
3 claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
4 Appellant invented a system and actuator for preventing particle
5 generation by a micro-actuator. (Specification 2 and 5). The micro-actuator
6 is “U” shaped. (Specification 2; Figures 2 and 4-6).
7 Representative independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
8 1. An actuator, comprising:
9
10 an actuator element having a generally ‘U’-shaped structure, the
11 actuator including a support frame of a first material; and
12
13 a coating at least partially encapsulating the actuator element to
14 prevent particle generation, the coating comprising a second material.
15
16 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C.
17 § 102(e).
18 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
19 appeal is:
20 Kurano US 6,617,762 B2 Sep. 9, 2003
21 (Filed Aug. 2, 2001)
22
23 Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
24 by Kurano. More specifically, Appellant contends that “the micro-actuator
25 used by Kurano is not U-shaped.” (Br. 4). Appellant further contends that
26 the Examiner misidentifies element 17 (a flexible substrate) as the
27 microactuator because “a ‘microactuator’ is not the equivalent of a ‘flexible
28 substrate’.” (Reply Br. 2). Lastly, Appellant contends the embodiments
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013