Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565,
1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As framed by the appellant, the dispositive issue with
respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection is whether
Wieland meets the “braking” limitations in independent
claims 1 and 3. As indicated above, method claim 1 requires
the step of “fixing the carriage when it reaches a
predetermined desired position by exerting a braking force
on the carriage,” and apparatus or device claim 3 requires
“a braking system by which said carriage is fixable with
respect to the alignment cylinder.” According to the
examiner (see page 2 in the final rejection and page 4 in
the answer), these limitations read on Wieland’s stepper or
servo motor 37, 54 and its manner of use.
The examiner’s position here is not sound. Although
Wieland’s carriage 8 apparently stops, and is fixed in
position with respect to cylinder 1, upon de-energization of
stepper or servo motor 37, 54, this alone does not make the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007