Appeal No. 96-1183
Application 08/102,858
unsupported by the applied prior art. We agree with appellant
that the examiner’s position is unsupported by the record in
this case.
The critical question in this case is whether it would
have been obvious to implement the Christie motions using a
rack and pinion system. The examiner simply concludes that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to use a rack and
pinion system to implement any desired motions such as those
of Christie. Appellant argues that the only suggestion for
obtaining the claimed translational and rotational movement
out of a single rack and pinion system configured as claimed
comes from appellant’s own disclosure. We are constrained to
agree with appellant on this record.
Neither Ikedo nor Rached suggests that a rack and pinion
assembly can achieve the translation and rotation of a carrier
attached to the rack. Ikedo teaches no rotation whatsoever,
and Rached merely teaches that linear and rotational forces
can be converted to each other. The examiner’s finding that
the artisan would even look to a rack and pinion assembly for
achieving the motion in Christie is based on the fact that
appellant disclosed that a rack and pinion assembly could
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007