Ex Parte Minegishi et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2005-2603                                                                Παγε 2                                      
             Application No. 10/118,068                                                                                                      


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                                                 
                    The appellants' invention relates to a driving apparatus comprising an oscillating                                       
             internal meshing planetary gear unit and an external unit, wherein a frictional                                                 
             transmission unit constituted by a simple planetary roller mechanism is interposed                                              
             between the oscillating meshing planetary gear unit and the external unit.  A copy of the                                       
             claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                      


                                               The Applied Prior Art                                                                         
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                          
             appealed claims are:                                                                                                            
             Batchelder    1,871,835   Aug. 16, 1932                                                                                         
             Minegishi et al. (Minegishi) 5,651,747   Jul. 29, 1997                                                                          


                                                   The Rejection                                                                             
                    Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                 
             unpatentable over Minegishi in view of Batchelder.                                                                              
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                            
             the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                                             
             (mailed December 14, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                                              
             rejections and to the brief (filed November 15, 2004) and reply brief (filed February 14,                                       
             2005) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                                                               
















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007