Appeal No. 1998-1844
Application No. 08/601,726
of that reference. However, in our opinion, that objective teaching was not sufficient to lead
the artisan to the arrangement required by appellants’ claim 1, absent impermissible
hindsight of the instant invention. Westmoreland discloses a central shaft having a screw-
threaded portion 34 (Fig. 2) and splined portion 38, with the portions being “joined
together as one.” See Westmoreland, column 3, lines 61-63. Screw-threaded portion 34
and splined portion 38 are driven, respectively, by electric screw motor assembly 22 and
electric spline motor assembly 23 to impart linear and rotary motion to the central shaft.
While each motor assembly is disposed entirely within the housing of “arrangement” 20, it
is not apparent how the teachings of Westmoreland would be applicable to the
arrangement of Balter, as illustrated in Balter’s Figure 1. Moreover, a suggestion for
coaxial positioning of the two motors does not necessarily mean that the motors would be
“disposed entirely within said primary housing,” as set forth in claim 1.
Perhaps the examiner has discounted clear language of instant claim 1. “In
addition, Examiner believes that it is reasonable to interpret that Balter show[s] both linear
and rotary motors disposed within the housing 12.” (Answer, page 4.) If the statement
means that both motors are thought to be entirely within housing 12, we disagree with the
finding. If the statement means that each motor is at least partially within housing 12, we
agree with the finding, but find it of little relevance in view of the clear requirements set forth
by claim 1.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007