Appeal No. 2002-1908
Application 09/097,013
unpatentable over Takahashi ‘676 in view of Gualtiere or the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 8 as
being unpatentable over Takahashi ‘676 in view of Hansen.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 4
Claim 4 further defines the aligning apparatus recited in
parent claim 1 as comprising a rotary member which is capable of
being rotated intermittently. The underlying specification
indicates that the rotary member (rotary drum 11), which is
driven by an electric motor 24 and a pulley/belt arrangement 20
through 22, may be continuously or intermittently rotated, and
“[w]hen the rotary drum 11 is rotated intermittently, it is
preferable that not only the rotary drum 11 is stopped but also
it is rotated a little in the opposite direction” (page 16, lines
7 through 10).
According to the examiner, “[t]he disclosure on page 16
lines 6-12 is insufficient to enable one to make and use the
intermittent and intermittent with a reverse movement step
systems” (final rejection, page 3). The examiner further
explains that “while the claim only mentions ‘rotated
intermittently’ . . . [t]his disclosure requires that the
intermittent rotation be coupled with a reverse movement step”
(answer, page 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007