Appeal No. 95-0884
Application 07/805,098
the lead screw 79 or the threaded nut 72 [brief, pages 5-6].
Appellant also argues that there is no reason to use the Camras
spring with the Torii positioning system [reply brief, pages 3-
5].
With respect to the first point made by appellant, we
agree that Camras contains no teaching whatsoever of how the
spring 75 coacts with the threaded nut 72 and the lead screw 79.
The examiner argues that despite this complete absence of a
teaching in Camras, it would have been obvious to the artisan
that the Camras spring was intended to perform in the claimed
manner because it was an old and well-known method for preventing
backlash and ensuring a positively seated lead screw [answer,
page 8]. This alleged finding of fact by the examiner is not
supported by any evidence in this record. Appellant disputes
that the spring in Camras operates to urge the lead screw against
the carriage, and the examiner simply relies on the skill of the
artisan to conclude that what Appellant has done would have been
obvious. The examiner is obligated to support his position with
clear evidience on the record. Such evidence is lacking here so
that the examiner’s position amounts to nothing more than an
unsupported opinion. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of the claims based on Torii and Camras.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007