Appeal No. 1998-2512 Page 8
Application No. 08/618,593
Among the requirements of the spring motor system
described in independent claim 25 is that there be a storage
drum means, an output drum, and control gear means mounted on
three separate parallel axes which are spaced from one another.
This clearly is not taught by Kuhar, in which these three
elements are mounted on only two axes. Claim 25 also specifies
that there be several sets of gear means mounted between the
various drum means, which also is not taught by Kuhar, whose
system has no gear means at all. Again, and for the same
reasons as were expressed above with regard to the rejection of
claim 1, we do not agree with the examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to modify the Kuhar system in the
manner he proposed.
It is our view that a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established with regard to independent claim 25 and
dependent claims 26-38, and we will not sustain this rejection.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to independent
claim 39 and dependent claims 40-45. The manifestation of the
invention set forth in claim 39 comprises a plurality of spring
motors arranged between a pair of parallel spaced apart plates
having opposite ends with each motor including storage drum
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007