Appeal No. 1998-0331
Application No. 08/297,257
carrier 12. The plunger 26 is secured to a
tubular support 29 which is angularly
movable, within limits, with reference to the
frame F of the machine tool but is held
against axial movement. When the carrier 12
is indexed by the wheel 28, the cylinder 25
turns with reference to the plunger 26.
Col. 3, l. 63 through col. 4, l. 8. The examiner describes
Ledergerber as disclosing "a hydraulic control system (Fig. 3)
to rout pressure fluid from the drive shaft hollow cavity to
the spindle carrier (12) interior manifold (23)," supra, but
there is no "drive shaft hollow cavity" in Ledergerber's Fig.
3.
It is elementary that to support an obviousness
rejection, all of the claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art applied. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d
981, 984-85,
180 USPQ 580, 582-83 (CCPA 1974). The appellants argue that
the applied prior art, taken individually or in combination,
fails to teach or suggest a multiple spindle bar machine
including a spindle drive shaft including a hollow cavity
extending a length of the shaft, a fluid coupling at one end
of the drive shaft opposite a drive gear for injecting
pressurized fluid into the hollow cavity and a fluid coupling
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007