Appeal No. 2006-1915
Application No. 10/056,312
the motor from the rotation axis of the driven shaft to accommodate the backlash
eliminator, as urged by the appellants (reply brief, p. 3), the salient point is that the
appellants “agree that the motor is spaced away and that a power transmission
mechanism, such as intervening gears, would be useful” (second reply brief, p. 3).
Stated differently, the appellants concede that a skilled artisan would have found it
“useful,” and thus obvious, to provide a transmission mechanism to space the
motor to accommodate a backlash eliminator. In the face of the appellants’
concession, we conclude that Tsune’s teaching of a belt and pulley as the
transmission mechanism connected between the motor and the drive shaft would
have provided the artisan with ample motivation to provide a belt and pulley to
space Ushiwata’s motor 11 from the drive shaft (motor shaft 12) to accommodate a
backlash eliminator. That other transmission mechanisms, such as intervening
gears, might also be reasonable candidates as the transmission mechanism to
provide spacing in no way dissuades us from this conclusion.
For the reasons discussed above, the arguments in the appellants’ brief and
reply briefs fail to persuade us the examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Ushiwata in view of Tsune. We therefore affirm the rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013