Appeal No. 2004-2131 Page 6
Application No. 10/016,719
In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal (final rejection,
pp. 2-3), the examiner (1) ascertained that Bayne does not disclose the use of at least 3
rotatable threaded spindles; (2) ascertained that Bayne does not disclose the use of
ball bearings to reduce the friction due to the lateral movements of the spindles;
(3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to use any number of spindles in the device of Bayne as
such is merely a design choice; and (4) concluded that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use ball bearings as
taught by Joffe in the device of Bayne in order to allow for better operation of the
device.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-9) that the applied prior art does not suggest
modifying Bayne to use several axiparallel spindles as set forth in claims 1 and 7. We
agree.
All the claims under appeal require several axiparallel spindles. However, this
limitation is not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while Bayne does
teach a single spindle, neither Bayne nor Joffe teach or suggest using several
axiparallel spindles. To supply this omission in the teachings of the applied prior art,
the examiner made a determination (final rejection, p. 2) that this difference would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007