Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
unwind the line” in claim 15 to require the worm gear
mechanism to be in the drive or power train connecting the
motor to the reel such that rotation of the worm gear
mechanism causes the reel to rotate. This is clearly not the
case in Cox which teaches a shaft 58 rotated by a motor 32
through a gear train comprising gears 36, 38, 40, 70, 68 and
66 and a shaft 34 rotated by a motor 32 through a gear train
comprising gears 36, 38, 40 and 42. Shaft 58 is not
“operatively coupled” to the shaft 34 such that rotation of
the shaft 58 “rotates” the shaft 34.
Accordingly, the standing § 102 rejection of claim 15,
and of claims 16, 18 and 19 dependent on claim 15, cannot be
sustained.
Turning next to the § 103 rejection of claims 2 through
7, 11 and 21 through 23 based on Cox, alone, we note that3
3On page 5 of the answer, the examiner refers to a non-applied patent
to Frankel as supporting his obviousness position. For the reasons set forth
in the case of In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3
(CCPA 1970), this is entirely inappropriate. Accordingly, we have not
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007