Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
The examiner has separately rejected dependent claims 10
through 12 in light of the collective teachings and showings
of Long, Fales and Watkins. We sustain this rejection as to
claims 10 and 11, but reverse it as to claim 12. We agree
with the examiner's rationale expressed at pages 10 and 11 of
the answer that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
have employed the hub 4 of the drum 3 in Figures 2 and 3 of
Watkins to the drive shaft 24 in the Figures 2 and 3 showings
of Fales. To increase the ability of the shaft 24 to support
the rotatable disc 30 in the Figures 2 and 3 showing of Fales,
it would have been obvious to have utilized the teaching of
the hub of the drum 3 in Watkins' Figures 1 and 2 to permit
the shaft 24 in Fales to mount the rotatable disc 30 thereto
in the same manner that Watkins shows that the hub 4 is
utilized to mount the drum 3 to the shaft 6. Such an
arrangement obviously would have enhanced the stability of the
rotatable disc 30 about the shaft 24 in Fales in light of the
teachings and suggestions in Watkins. The combined teachings
and showings of the references as just noted clearly meet the
function of claim 10 for mounting the image disc thereto as
recited in claim 10.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007