Appeal No. 1998-2064 Application 08/710,551 Claims 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Markus. Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 11) and to the final rejection and the answer (Paper Nos. 4 and 12, respectively) for the respective positions of appellant and the examiner with respect to this rejection. Opinion In reaching our decision is this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions set forth by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find that we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection. There appears to be no dispute that the only difference between the rotary drive device of Becker and claim 5, the sole independent claim on appeal, lies in the particulars of the mounting of the female thread member 74 within the housing members 8, 10. With respect to the mounting of the female thread member within the housing, appellant’s claim 5 calls 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007