Appeal No. 2003-1645
Application 09/803,720
a fourth shaft mounted for rotation in said housing and engaged with said cam follower so
as said cam follower oscillates back and forth, said fourth shaft oscillates back and forth, and
a cable guide arm mounted on said fourth shaft and having a cable guide eye through
which the cable passes so that when same cam is rotated in either direction, said cam causes said
cam follower arm to oscillate back and forth causing said fourth shaft to oscillate back and forth
thereby causing said cable guide to oscillate back and forth so that the cable passing through said
eye is wound evenly on said cable reel.
According to the examiner, “[t]he ‘fourth shaft’ reads on the portion of shaft 20 below the
pivot 23;” “[t]he ‘cable guide arm,’ which carries guide eye 26, reads on the portion of shaft 20
above pivot 23”; and “[t]he ‘cable guide arm’ connects the guide eye to the ‘fourth shaft’ . . .
[which] is centrally mounted as shown in fig. 2” (answer, page 4). Appellant submits that “[a]s
shown in Figures 2 and 4 . . . the cam follower 39 is mounted on a shaft 50 which oscillates or
rotates back and forth and rotates shaft 57 (the fourth shaft recited in claim 1) which in turn, has
the arm 60 mounted thereon so that arm 60 oscillates back and forth with oscillation of shaft 57 –
quite a different structure than the second-class lever of . . . Welch” (brief, page 6).
We find that the limitations in appealed claim 1 read on the structure that appellant
identifies in specification FIGs. 2 and 4 and not the structure of Welch as alleged by the
examiner. A comparison of these two structures in light of the limitations set forth in appealed
claim 1 establish that there indeed several differences. The examiner does not identify the
structure and function in Welch for certain claim limitations, such as the “arm carrying said cam
follower and oscillates back and forth thereby,” which “cam follower arm” engages the “cam
follower” with “a fourth shaft mounted for rotation in said housing” such that the “cam causes
said cam follower arm to oscillate back and forth causing said fourth shaft to oscillate back and
forth thereby causing said cable guide to oscillate back and forth.” The examiner has not
advanced a position that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it obvious to modify
the apparatus of Welch in these respects.
Accordingly, because it is apparent that the line-distributing device for reels disclosed by
Welch does not read on the elements of the claimed cable reel level winding device arranged as
required in the appealed claim 1, we reverse the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007