Appeal No. 95-0884
Application 07/805,098
with appellant that this claim recitation requires that the
spring act directly on the lead screw to move it.
Steltzer is considered to be a particularly relevant
piece of prior art because it at least suggests the desirability
of urging a threaded means attached to the carriage against the
threads of the lead screw to reduce vertical motion backlash and
hysteresis. Steltzer, however, clearly applies the urging force
to the threaded nut as opposed to the lead screw. Although the
same result is desired by Steltzer as in the claimed invention,
the manner of getting there is different. The appropriate
question to have asked based upon the teachings of Steltzer is
whether the Steltzer technique for reducing vertical motion
backlash and hysteresis would have rendered the technique of the
instant claims obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner has never considered this question, and appellant
has presented arguments as to why the claimed feature of using
the spring to directly contact and urge the lead screw against
the carriage thread means represents a patentable advance over
the applied prior art. Therefore, on the record before us, there
are no facts presented upon which the examiner’s rejection of the
claims based on Torii, Camras and Steltzer can be supported.
Thus, we also do not sustain this rejection of claims 1-10.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007