Appeal 2007-0683
Application 10/121,772
portions at the distal end with the substantially identical flexure assemblies
13a, 13b attached to the mounting portions.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Nakanishi, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 19, as well as dependent
claims 4, 6, 7 13, and 20 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, and 22 based on Nakanishi
alone, we sustain this rejection as well. Appellants have made no separate
arguments for patentability of these claims relying, instead, on arguments
made against the parent independent claims 1, 12, and 19, which arguments
we found to be unpersuasive as discussed supra.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, 11, 14-16, and 21 in which the Nakanishi reference is modified
with the spacer feature teachings of Kaneko. Appellants’ arguments in
response are directed solely to the Examiner’s alleged misinterpretation of
the language “a spacer” in claims 2, 14, and 21. We don’t disagree with
Appellants’ contention (Br. 12; Reply Br. 9) that the indefinite article “a”
when used with “comprising” means “one or more”. The issue with respect
to the Examiner’s rejection, however, is whether the claimed recitation “a
spacer” should be interpreted as meaning “only one spacer.” We find no
basis in the claim language as presented for the interpretation urged by
Appellants. We find nothing in the claims which would preclude a spacer
being included between each of the actuator arms 1 and the flexure arms 2
such as in Kaneko.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013