Appeal No. 1998-1844
Application No. 08/601,726
claims 2-4 and 6-12 is also not sustained, since each dependent claim contains at least
the limitations of claim 1.
Turning to independent claim 13, appellants argue that the claim “is directed to a
linear/rotary motor having coaxial shafts and a coupling to permit axial motion but to isolate
rotational motion.” (Brief, page 7.) “Balter fails to disclose this arrangement....” (Id.)
We disagree with the bare assertion that Balter fails to disclose the above-quoted
arrangement. Balter discloses a linear/rotary motor (Fig. 1) having coaxial shafts 58, 40
and a coupling to permit axial motion (of both shaft 58 and 40), but isolating shaft 58 from
the rotational motion of shaft 40. As detailed at column 3, line 49 through column 4, line 21
of the reference, a coupling comprised of cupshaped bearing holder 46, ball bearing 50,
outer race 52, inner race 54, balls 56, and stop-ring 60 isolates linear-motion drive shaft
58 from shaft 40 (which is rotated by rotary-motion unit 80). The arrangement disclosed by
Balter is, in fact, similar in construction to the shaft coupling 42 disclosed by appellants
(Fig. 1), comprised of inner bearing member 40, outer bearing member 44, and snap ring
46.
The limitations alleged to be missing from the prior art are thus found within the four
corners of the Balter disclosure. Appellants have not shown any error in the rejection of
claim 13. We therefore sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of the claim.
Appellants’ reference to the claims dependent on 13 (14-19), appearing at the
bottom of page 7 of the Brief, does not rise to the level of providing arguments for separate
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007