Appeal No. 1998-0690
Application No. 08/562,796
examiner states that one pair of posts are parallel to the sides of the drive, but the claims
require that the posts be parallel to the end. (See answer at page 6.) We disagree with
the examiner that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a fourth post. If
four posts were present, then they would be placed in the corners and therefore not inward
from the end with the actuator or disk mounted on a line between a pair of posts. From our
review of Morehouse, it appears that the actuator and the disk MAY be mounted within the
triangular area formed by the mounting posts, but Morehouse does not disclose expressly
this orientation or show it in the drawings. Therefore, this would be speculation on our part
absent a convincing line of reasoning. We find that the examiner has not provided any
convincing line of reasoning for orienting the physical placement of the claimed elements.
Therefore, we cannot accept the examiner's conclusions and modifications to the basic
teachings and suggestions of Morehouse. (See answer at pages 5-8.)
Since the examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion of all of the claimed
limitations, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 19, 23-25 and
28-33.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007