Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 8
Application No. 08/036,857
clean the lens twice during the movement of the optical
assembly from one side of the disk to the other. It would
clean the lens at the beginning of the semi-circular rack gear
and at its end. The brush would not clean the lens during the
entire time in which the optical assembly is moving along the
entire arc of the semi-circular rack gear. In other words,
cleaning would not be continuous during the entire time of
movement along the arc as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
the references would have suggested means for cleaning as in
independent claim 8 and its dependent claim 9. Accordingly,
we find the examiner’s rejection of these claims does not
amount to a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the
examiner has not established a prima facie case, the rejection
of the claims over Okamoto in view of Kusaura and Takei is
improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of the claims 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007