Appeal No. 96-1603
Application 08/057,989
claim 1, and thus we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant argues that Kato does not disclose a block
mounted integrally with the feed nut and a table supported by
the block for movement along an axial direction of the feed
screw.
However, as admitted by appellant in the brief at page
15, frame or block 15 is mounted integrally with the feed nut.
In addition, as depicted in Figure 1, frame or block 15
clearly supports table 2 for movement along an axial direction
of the feed screw.
Appellant also argues that the configuration of the
threaded shafts 12, 16 and guide shafts 14, 17 represents the
conventional prior art feeding apparatus in which there is no
specific slide mechanism disposed between feed screw 12 and
the frame or block 15. The appellant concludes that since
screw 12 and frame or block 15 are connected to each other
integrally, the table is directly influenced by angular
deflection of the feed nut in a direction transverse to the
feed axis of the feed screw 12. This argument is not
persuasive because in the examiner’s analysis, the frame 15 is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007