Appeal No. 95-0884
Application 07/805,098
position taken by the examiner. Since Torii was cited simply to
teach a tape drive movement system using a lead screw and since
Steltzer also teaches this type of drive system, it appears that
Torii could have been eliminated from the combination to support
the position of the examiner. That is, Steltzer alone would
appear to provide the same teachings to the artisan with respect
to claim 1 as the combination of Torii and Steltzer would
provide.
With respect to the second point raised by appellant, we
agree with appellant that there is a literal difference between
urging the lead screw against the carriage thread means and
urging the carriage thread means against the lead screw.
Appellant argues that the claims require that the spring contact
the lead screw and provide force directly thereto. In our view,
this is a correct interpretation of independent claims 1 and 8.
Claim 1 recites that the springs means acts on the lead screw and
urges the lead screw laterally relative to its rotational axis.
We agree with appellant that this claim recitation requires that
the spring act directly on the lead screw to move it. Claim 8
recites that the spring clip embraces the lead screw and urges it
into engagement with the carriage thread means. Again, we agree
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007