Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725
substitution using the single shaft 19 of Bruestle, without destroying the
other disclosed function of the shaft 19, namely, rotation of sprocket 23
secured at one end thereof (Bruestle, col. 2, ll. 2-4 and Fig. 3). Rather,
substitution of a planetary gear angle drive of the type disclosed by
Bonfiglioli for each of the bevel gear sets 17, 15 and 18, 16 of Bruestle, as
apparently proposed by the Examiner, would seemingly involve an extensive
and complex redesign of the drive transmission arrangement from the power
source to such planetary gear angle drives without any apparent benefit or
improvement resulting therefrom. We therefore conclude that the Examiner
erred in determining it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Bruestle to provide two planetary gears having
independently rotatable primary axles, as called for in claim 1. The rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2-10 depending from claim 1, is reversed.
Claim 11
Claim 11, like claim 1, requires two planetary gears, with each gear
having its own primary axle.1 Bruestle, as discussed above, provides only a
single primary axle and thus lacks this feature. The Examiner’s application
of Fisk for its teaching of providing a feeding apparatus having a pair of
continuous belts with press rollers 7, 8 for pressing the belts into
engagement with work to be fed (Answer 4) does not make up for the
deficiency of Bruestle. We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in
1 While claim 11 does not positively recite each planetary gear having its
own primary axle, the reference to “the primary axles of both planetary
gears” requires two primary axles, one for each planetary gear. Although
the failure to provide strict antecedent basis for the primary axles does not
render the claim indefinite, this informality is deserving of correction.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013