Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
Ohnuki comes from appellant's disclosure rather than from the
references or from what was known by the artisan.
Hummel and Bornhorst show structure to maintain a movable
tubular member centered in a stationary tubular member. Neither
reference shows a cam mechanism or cam grooves which are
circumferentially aligned and offset in the optical axis
direction to prevent skew. Therefore, Hummel and Bornhorst are
not relevant to the rejection.
We agree with the examiner that Furusawa, Ito, and Nakagawa
show "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). However, none of these references
has anything to do with a cam mechanism having cam grooves which
are circumferentially aligned and offset in the optical axis
direction to prevent skew. Therefore, Furusawa, Ito, and
Nakagawa are not relevant to the rejection.
For the reasons stated above, the rejections of claims 1-11
and 21 is reversed.
Claims 12-19
We will sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 16. The
guide frame 1 having a guide slot 2 in Ohnuki corresponds to the
- 10 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007