Appeal No. 97-1758 Page 15
Application No. 08/326,721
“Jadrich’s flexure allows only for minimal rotational movement
of the carriage around [an axis] perpendicular to the
wormscrew. . . .” (Examiner’s Answer at 9.) The appellant
emphasizes, however, “[i]n the present invention there is no
rotation.” (Appeal Br. at 23.) The language of the claim
does not permit substantial rotation about any axis. Thus,
the direction of rotation in Jadrich is irrelevant. For the
foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show that the
references would have suggested the flexure of independent
claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-12 and 19-22.
Accordingly, we find the examiner’s rejection does not amount
to a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the examiner
has not established a prima facie case, the rejection of
claims 9-12 and 19-22 is improper. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of the claims 9-12 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007