Appeal No. 98-2005
Application No. 08/571,156
way concerned with a cushion or cushioning spring of the type
required in the claims on appeal.
Buhl, on the other hand, in contrast to appellants and
the Admitted Prior Art or Aoki, is concerned with a distinctly
different kind of problem in an entirely different type of
apparatus, i.e., the smooth inversion of motion in a vehicle
windshield wiper unit, wherein the wiper operation requires
that the wiper be repetitively oscillated between end points
that define the wiping angle. No such repetitive oscillation
is present in the transmission apparatus of the Admitted Prior
Art or Aoki, wherein the worm gear is driven in a single
direction to shift the drive in a particular manner (e.g.,
into four-wheel drive) and then retained in that position
until a shift to the other drive mode (i.e., two-wheel drive)
is needed or desired. Thus, we perceive no reasonable basis
for incorporating a spring device of the nature seen in Buhl
into the transfer case actuator of the Admitted Prior Art or
Aoki in order to ensure that the "inversion of motion does not
take place all of a sudden but in a cushioned manner," as is
urged by the examiner (answer, pages 5 and 7), since there is
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007