Appeal No. 95-0884
Application 07/805,098
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner cites Torii as teaching a conventional drive
system in which a lead screw causes relative movement of a
carriage. Torii does not teach the use of a spring means to urge
the lead screw into firm camming frictional engagement with the
carriage. The examiner recognizes this deficiency of Torii and
cites Camras as a teaching of using a spring means to perform
this claimed operation. The examiner offers a reason as to why
it would have been obvious to apply the Camras teachings to the
Torii device [answer, pages 3-5]. Appellant argues that Camras
contains no teaching of how the spring means 75 interacts with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007