Appeal No. 96-1183
Application 08/102,858
achieve this motion. The applied prior art alone would not
lead the artisan to use a rack and pinion assembly to achieve
the claimed translational and rotational movements of a
carrier attached to the rack.
Since we are of the view that the prior art applied by
the examiner does not support the examiner’s rejection, we do
not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 10 and
15.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3 and 11.
We now consider the rejection of dependent claims 4 and
5. These claims were rejected on the combination of Christie,
Ikedo and Rached as discussed above, and further in view of
Crain and Fitzgerald, respectively. Since neither Crane nor
Fitzgerald overcomes the deficiencies noted in the combination
of Christie, Ikedo and Rached, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 4 and 5
fails for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007