Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
rotatable hub 40 rotates the whole hub around the shaft, where
the hub 40, arm 39 and carriage 35 move together as a unit to
trace out a helical path. We find no suggestion to
incorporate Elliott's drive system into Yamakawa's "while
maintaining the non-rotating carrier disclosed by Yamakawa"
(EA11). The Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejection of claim 14 is reversed.
Claims 15-18
The additionally applied Verhagen patent does not cure
the deficiencies noted with Yamakawa and Elliott. Therefore,
the rejection of claims 15-18 is reversed.
We further note, however, that we disagree with the
Examiner's position that "Verhagen's spring 17 inherently
applies axial force on the shaft and reduces vibration, as
this is the purpose of Verhagen's invention" (EA21-22). The
spring 17 in Verhagen supports the sub-frame 1 as part of a
spring/damper arrangement and, even assuming the cylindrical
spindle 15 is considered to be a shaft, it does not apply
- 21 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007