Ex Parte Godin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2012

10693394 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MIKHAIL GODIN
____________________

Appeal 2009-012484
Application 10/693,394
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012484
Application 10/693,394

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A linear actuator comprising
a core having a longitudinal axis;
a coil shaped for movement along the longitudinal axis of the
core; and
a magnet structure positioned along the longitudinal axis of the
core;
wherein the core includes first and second portions, each
including an end face and a cavity formed in the end face having an
axis of symmetry along the longitudinal axis of the core, and further
wherein the first and second portions are positioned so that the end
faces oppose each other and are separated by a gap.
Appellant’s Contention
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kotsianas (US 5,898,244)
because:
Kotsianas et al. does not teach a core including “first and
second portions, each including an end face and a cavity formed
in the end face ... wherein the first and second portions are
positioned so that the end faces oppose each other and are
separated by a gap,” as recited in involved independent claim 1.
(App. Br. 8).

Appeal 2009-012484
Application 10/693,394

3
Issues on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2 as being
anticipated because Kotsianas fails to disclose claim limitations?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant’s above contention. Therefore, Appellant
has established that the Examiner erred with respect to the rejection of
claims 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) On this record, claims 1 and 2 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD