Appeal No. 96-1893
Application 08/073,416
positional relationship between the main chassis and the slide
chassis in both directions (i.e. since it only restrains in
one direction) opposite to each other along the feed path when
the positioning means is connected to both the main chassis
and the slide chassis" (supplemental answer, page 5).
The Examiner's position supra, confirms that Tsuchida
does not teach the claimed limitation of the positioning means
allowing a positional change "in both directions opposite to
each other along the feed path...," (i.e., allowing movement
to the left and to the right as claimed. We do not agree with
the Examiner that allowing movement in one of the both
directions (as taught in Tsuchida) is a proper reading of the
claim language. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 21.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants argue a
difference in power consumption between their invention and
Tsuchida (reply brief, middle of page 2). We agree with the
Examiner that power consumption is not recited in claim 11.
Appellants further urge that Tsuchida's positioning member is
connected to both the main and slide chassis before the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007