Appeal No. 2006-0593 Page 5
Application No. 09/895,611
cause the x axis not to be orthogonal with respect to the z
axis and, at times, even parallel to the z.
Consequently, Applicant respectfully suggests that no
matter with what Pitavy et al. is combined, the combination
will not create the device of the present claims 3, 4, 6, and 7,
which require a third axis that is substantially orthogonal both
to the first axis and to the second axis [brief, page 13].
We find no requirement in any of claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 that the first, second and third
axes be orthogonal, or even substantially orthogonal to one another at all times.
Moreover, we find no indication in the appellant’s underlying disclosure, either with the
specification as originally filed or as amended with the subject matter objected to by the
examiner as new matter, that the third axis of rotation is substantially orthogonal to both
of the first (pitch) and second (roll) axes of rotation at all times during the rotation.
Specifically, with the table 19 rotated substantially away from its orthogonal orientation,
shown in Figure 2, with respect to the supporting bars 20, the (roll) axis of rotation of
shaft 2 will not be substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the supporting bars
20 (as described in the penultimate paragraph on page 8 of appellant’s specification as
originally filed). On the other hand, even with the description of the third axis of rotation
in the amended version of the penultimate paragraph on page 8 of the specification,
rotary motion of supports holding the shaft 2 to table 19 would move the (roll) axis of
rotation of the shaft to an orientation that is not substantially orthogonal to the (pitch)
axis of the table 19. We thus conclude that the claim language “a means for rotating
said shaft about a third axis that is substantially orthogonal both to the first axis and to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007