Appeal No. 1998-2064
Application 08/710,551
Claims 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Becker in view of Markus.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 11) and to the
final rejection and the answer (Paper Nos. 4 and 12,
respectively) for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner with respect to this rejection.
Opinion
In reaching our decision is this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions set forth by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we find that we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection.
There appears to be no dispute that the only difference
between the rotary drive device of Becker and claim 5, the
sole independent claim on appeal, lies in the particulars of
the mounting of the female thread member 74 within the housing
members 8, 10. With respect to the mounting of the female
thread member within the housing, appellant’s claim 5 calls
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007