Appeal No. 2005-2603 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/118,068
eliminate the disadvantages of toothed driving and driven elements discussed by
Batchelder. The examiner does not appear to be proposing replacement of the simple
planetary gear mechanism C of Minegishi with the particular speed transmission
element disclosed by Batchelder. Moreover, even assuming that, as appellants'
argument appears to intimate, Batchelder would have suggested replacement of
Minegishi's simple planetary gear mechanism with the more complex planetary roller
mechanism disclosed by Batchelder, it is not apparent to us why this would not meet the
limitations of the simple planetary roller mechanism recited in claim 1. Specifically, the
mechanism disclosed by Batchelder and illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 comprises a sun
roller (roller 7), a plurality of planetary rollers 18 being retained by a planetary carrier
(retainer 11) and making rolling contact with the outer periphery of the sun roller, and a
ring roller (ring 19) with which the plurality of planetary rollers make internal contact,
wherein the carrier (retainer 11) is used as a fixed element, the roller 7 is used as an
input element and the ring 19 is used as an output element.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of independent claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Minegishi in view of Batchelder is sustained. The like rejection of
independent claim 14 and dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 15 and 16 is also sustained since
appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).1
1 As set forth in 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007