Appeal No. 2005-2210 Παγε 7
Application No. 09/996,974
mechanism for actually performing the function of transferring a substrate onto the
mandrel assembly 10 or moving it along the mandrel assembly 10, as called for in
claims 1 and 4. Any contention by the examiner that Swain does disclose such a
mechanism is simply not supported by the reference.
The examiner’s reliance on Van Breen for a suggestion to modify Swain to arrive
at the claimed invention is misplaced. Van Breen discloses a magnetic disc stacking
and unstacking device comprising a motor 50 which drives a lead screw 48, by means
of pulleys 56, 58 and belt 60, to move drive nut 40 axially along hollow cylindrical
member 12 to thereby move chains 30, 32. The magnetic discs 18 are supported by
exposed nibs (e.g., 63, 64) of the chains and are moved along the cylinder by
movement of the chains. Van Breen discloses a mechanism associated with a single
shaft (cylinder 12) for moving discs along that shaft. Van Breen provides no teaching or
suggestion to use a mechanism on one shaft for actuating a mechanism on a second
shaft to move objects along either shaft and thus cannot make up for that which is
lacking in Swain.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4 as being
unpatentable over Swain in view of Van Breen. The examiner’s additional application of
Rauh and Schiltz in rejecting dependent claims 5 and 8-10 provides no cure for the
deficiency of the combination of Swain and Van Breen discussed above. It thus follows
that the rejections of claims 5 and 10 as being unpatentable over Swain in view of Van
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007