Appeal No. 2002-0431
Application 09/309,057
The examiner argues (final rejection mailed September 22,
2000, paper no. 7, pages 2-3)2:
The specification fails to set forth how the two motors
cause the shaft to be extended up into the conduit
(page 10, line 11), to turn the shaft in a “radial”
direction, or to oscillate it back and forth, with or
without simultaneously vertical moving. Merely showing
two “motors” without giving any indication as to how
they are connected to the shaft by transmissions of a
nature that imparts a specific motion while allowing a
separate or concurrent motion in the other of the two
disclosed modes is insufficient to enable one skilled
in the art to make the device. Although it could be
said that transmissions for connecting a motor to a
shaft to impart axial reciprocating motion are old and
well-known, and that transmissions for connecting a
motor to a shaft to impart rotary reciprocating motion
are old and well-known, connecting two motors (either
directly or indirectly) to the same shaft to at the
same time apply their own type of motion while being
simultaneously constructed and connected not to
interfere with the application of the other type of
motion is an entirely different proposition.
The portions of the appellants’ original specification which
describe the mechanism for providing vertical and circumferential
motions to the shaft and describe the operation of that mechanism
are the following:
The lower portion 68 of shaft 64 is mounted to a
drive means, e.g., a motor 76 for driving the shaft 64
for movement in both the vertical and the radial
directions. The drive means 76 may be provided such
that the shaft 64 is capable of oscillating
2 The explanation of the rejection set forth in the final
rejection is relied upon in the examiner’s answer (page 2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007