Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
Bornhorst or Hummel alone or together with Kohmoto, further in
view of Nakagawa, Furusawa, and Ito. The rejection appears to be
basically the same as discussed above except that the examiner
cites Furusawa, Ito, and Nakagawa as "evidence that it is a
common and well known mechanical expedient in this art to provide
plural guide grooves and pins so as to constrain movement of a
member to a desired direction" (Examiner's Answer, page 9).
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16) for a
statement of the examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 13) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for a statement
of appellant's position.
OPINION
Claims 1-11 and 21
Claims 1 and 21 each recite two arcuate cam grooves
positioned circumferentially aligned with each other and offset
with respect to each other in an optical axis direction.
The examiner points to Kohmoto as recognizing the problem
dealt with by appellant and showing a solution of using an
increased number of pins and grooves. While the examiner agrees
with appellant's statement that Kohmoto is not substantially
different from the admitted prior art as represented by figures 1
and 2, we do not. Appellant argues that Kohmoto shows the same
defect as the admitted prior art (Brief, pages 7-8): "As can
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007