Appeal No. 1999-1751 Page 6
Application No. 08/814,299
Claims 1 and 2
These claims recite a device for transporting workpieces
including, inter alia, a first vacuum head element, a
reciprocating spindle having a helical rack and a helical
pinion driven by an output shaft of a rotary motor meshing
with the pinion.
The examiner's rejection is based on his belief (answer,
pp. 4-5) that the claimed helical rack and helical pinion are
readable on Hawkswell's drive nut 38 and lead screw 72,
respectively. The appellant disagrees (brief, p. 5).
We find that the claimed helical rack and helical pinion
are not readable on Hawkswell's drive nut 38 and lead screw
72. In that regard, it is well known that the distinction
between helical gearing and worm gearing may be stated as
follows: If the number of threads, or teeth, on the pitch
cylinder is such that no one thread makes a complete turn, the
gear is called a helical gear. If on the other hand, a thread
makes a complete turn, the result is a worm and the mating
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007