Appeal No. 2001-1214 Page 9
Application No. 09/213,726
coulisse3 being carried by at least one of the first and said second transmission
members is not readable on the structure taught by Travnicek.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 17, and claims 18, 19,
22 to 24 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Travnicek is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 25 to 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Travnicek in view of Hummel for the reasons set forth
above in our analysis of the rejection of parent claim 17 based on Travnicek since the
examiner has not set forth any reasoning as to why the limitations of claim 17 not
taught by Travnicek would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art.
3 The examiner appears (answer, p. 6) to have determined that the claimed coulisse was readable
on Travnicek's control member 11, however, this is incorrect since the control member 11 is not a part of
the distributor stroke transmission which transmits drive from the crank 20 to the distributing rollers 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007