Appeal No. 1999-1779
Application No. 08/480,561
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re
Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
That is not the case here, and we will not sustain this
rejection. Our reasoning follows.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a “wobble-
absorbing magnetic bearing for a drive system,” the objective
of which is to accommodate inaccuracies that may be present in
a driving mover as it moves a driven object. As manifested in
claim 1,
the invention comprises a driving bearing element having a
first surface and a driven bearing element having a second
surface “that faces the first surface along a drive
direction,” and rolling elements disposed between the surfaces
to “enable the driving and driven bearing elements to move
substantially freely, relative to each other, along at least
one direction transverse to the drive direction” and to
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007