Ex parte HAMASAKI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 1998

07885364 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 19, 1992, entitled "Cam1
Mechanism For Lens Barrel," which claims the foreign priority
benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Japanese Application 3-214848,
filed May 20, 1991.
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte TAKUJI HAMASAKI

Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,3641

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, LEE, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1-21, all of the claims pending in the
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 2 -
application. The amendment after final rejection received
February 22, 1994, has been entered (Examiner's Answer, page 2).
We affirm-in-part.
The disclosed invention is directed to a cam mechanism for a
lens barrel which prevents and minimizes slanting or skewing of a
movable annular member. In one claimed embodiment, appellant
provides an annular cam member having two identically shaped cam
grooves which are circumferentially aligned and are offset in the
optical axis direction and corresponding cam pins are installed
on the movable angular member and fitted into the cam grooves.
In a second claimed embodiment, one cam pin is fitted into a
guide groove at the same time it is fitted into a cam groove and
a guide piece unified with the cam pin is fitted into the guide
groove for sliding movement therein.
Claims 12 and 21 are reproduced below.
12. A cam mechanism for a lens barrel, said cam
mechanism comprising:
a stationary annular member having a guide groove
formed thereon;
an annular cam member arranged on said stationary
annular member in such a manner as to permit said annular
cam member to be rotatable around an optical axis of said
stationary annular member and having a first cam groove
formed in a predetermined cam profile thereon;
a movable annular member attached to said annular
cam member in such a manner as to permit said movable
annular member to be movable in an optical axis direction;
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 3 -
a first cam pin installed on said movable annular
member and fitted into said guide groove of said stationary
annular member at same time as said first cam pin is fitted
into said first cam groove on said annular cam member, and
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 4 -
a guide piece installed in a structure unified
with said first cam pin and fitted into said guide groove in
such a manner that said guide piece can slide freely
therein.
21. A cam mechanism for a lens barrel, said cam
mechanism comprising:
an annular cam member having at least two arcuate
cam grooves formed thereon with a same profile, said two
arcuate cam grooves positioned circumferentially aligned
with each other and offset with respect to each other in an
optical axis direction;
a movable annular member movably attached to said
annular cam member; and
at least two cam pins installed on said movable
annular member and fitted into said at least two cam grooves
of said annular cam member respectively.
The examiner relies upon admitted prior art in the
specification as represented by figures 1 and 2 and on the
following prior art:
Furusawa et al. (Furusawa) 3,628,439 December 21, 1971
Ito et al. (Ito) 3,787,108 January 22, 1974
Hummel et al. (Hummel) 3,819,254 June 25, 1974
Nakagawa 4,294,526 October 13, 1981
Ohnuki 4,515,438 May 7, 1985
Bornhorst 4,709,311 November 24, 1987
Kohmoto 5,043,752 August 27, 1991
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ohnuki taken with Bornhorst or Hummel or the
admitted prior art alone or together with Kohmoto. With respect
to claim 1, the examiner finds that Kohmoto is substantially the
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 5 -
same as the admitted prior art of appellant's figures 1 and 2 and
(Examiner's Answer, page 5): "Kohmoto recognizes the problem
dealt with by applicant and notes that the solution is to provide
an increased number of cam grooves and pins. Note column 1,
lines 6-10, 30-38, and 47-51." The examiner finds (Examiner's
Answer, page 6): "Ohnuki clearly teaches the provision of
additional guide slots and pins offset from the first guide slot
and pin in an axial direction in order to prevent undesired lens
play. Note column 2, lines 37-54 and column 3, lines 3-20 and
60-66." The examiner concludes that "one skilled in the art
would have found a clear suggestion in Ohnuki to provide
duplicate cam slots and pins spaced axially from each other in
order to prevent undesired tilting of the lens" (Examiner's
Answer, page 6). The examiner cites Hummel and Bornhorst as
"evidence to suggest that those skilled in the art would have
been motivated from known practices to provide axially spaced
guides to prevent lens play" (Examiner's Answer, page 6). The
rejection of claim 21 is based on the same reasons (Examiner's
Answer, page 8). With respect to independent claim 12, the
examiner finds the limitations to be essentially shown in Ohnuki
(Examiner's Answer, pages 7-8).
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art taken with Ohnuki,
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 6 -
Bornhorst or Hummel alone or together with Kohmoto, further in
view of Nakagawa, Furusawa, and Ito. The rejection appears to be
basically the same as discussed above except that the examiner
cites Furusawa, Ito, and Nakagawa as "evidence that it is a
common and well known mechanical expedient in this art to provide
plural guide grooves and pins so as to constrain movement of a
member to a desired direction" (Examiner's Answer, page 9).
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16) for a
statement of the examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 13) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for a statement
of appellant's position.
OPINION
Claims 1-11 and 21
Claims 1 and 21 each recite two arcuate cam grooves
positioned circumferentially aligned with each other and offset
with respect to each other in an optical axis direction.
The examiner points to Kohmoto as recognizing the problem
dealt with by appellant and showing a solution of using an
increased number of pins and grooves. While the examiner agrees
with appellant's statement that Kohmoto is not substantially
different from the admitted prior art as represented by figures 1
and 2, we do not. Appellant argues that Kohmoto shows the same
defect as the admitted prior art (Brief, pages 7-8): "As can
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 7 -
most clearly be seen with reference to Figures 1 and 2 of
KOHMOTO, since both of the cam followers 21b (two of which are
shown in Figure 2) are aligned within a single plane passing
through the center of the pins 21b and transverse to the optical
axis of the lens, the cam ring 20 can skew about this plane."
Kohmoto states (col. 2, line 68, to col. 3, line 2): "The three
front lens cam grooves 20a are preferably spaced from one another
at a substantially equiangular distance." Thus, although shown
opposite each other in figure 2, the cam followers 21b are not
opposite each other, but are at different phases just as pin 24a
and pin 21b are shown in the same view even though they are not
in the same plane (col. 3, lines 45-48): "Note that the pin 24a
is shown in the same sectional view as the pin 21b for the
purpose of clarification, but in fact they are located at
different phases [sic, (]that is, they actually do not appear in
the same sectional view)." Thus, we do not agree with
appellant's argument that Kohmoto shows oppositely aligned cam
pins which are substantially the same as the admitted prior art.
However, while Kohmoto discloses a plurality of circumferentially
spaced cam grooves to overcome the problem of inclination or
deviation of the optical axis (col. 1, lines 30-55), it does not
disclose or suggest appellant's claimed solution of
circumferentially aligned cam grooves which are offset in the
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 8 -
optical axis direction.
The examiner relies on the teaching in figure 4 of Ohnuki,
which shows two guide slots 2', 2" circumferentially aligned and
offset in the optical axis direction. Appellant argues that
Ohnuki does not show identical arcuate cam grooves with cam
rollers received therein and there is no reason for modifying
Ohnuki to provide such a feature. The examiner concludes that
"one skilled in the art would have found a clear suggestion in
Ohnuki to provide duplicate cam slots and pins spaced axially
from each other in order to prevent undesired tilting of the
lens" (Examiner's Answer, page 6). The examiner states that "the
clear teaching of Ohnuki is that the provision of axially spaced
slots prevents skewing" (Examiner's Answer, page 9) and
"[a]pplicant's attempt to make a distinction between guide slots
and cam slots misses the point and also ignores the question of
obviousness" (Examiner's Answer, page 10). In our opinion,
Ohnuki discloses another solution to the problem of preventing
play or slanting of the movable annular member due to rotating
motion centering around the cam pin and the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for providing cam
grooves which are circumferentially aligned and offset in the
optical axis direction.
In the embodiment of figures 1-3 of Ohnuki, skew in a
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 9 -
direction at right angles to the optical axis is prevented using
elongated sliding members 4 of suitable length which are in close
engagement with the sides of guide slots 2 extending in a
direction of the optical axis, the guide slots being provided in
at least two locations spaced at an angle other than 180E. In
the embodiment of figures 4-6, two pins 5 are aligned in a row
instead of using an elongated sliding member and two shorter
guide slots 2', 2" are aligned in the direction of the optical
axis instead of using a single slot. Ohnuki teaches that skew is
prevented by the engagement of sliding members or pins with
angularly spaced guide slots extending in a direction of the
optical axis, not by using arcuate cam grooves which are
circumferentially aligned and offset in the optical axis
direction. The two guide slots 2', 2" are separated by a
partition P for reinforcement (col. 3, lines 10-16) and,
manifestly, the two slots could be formed as a single long slot
as in figures 7, 10, and 11 if desired. While we can see the
superficial resemblance between the two slots 2', 2" in Ohnuki
and two cam grooves claimed, the slots extend in the direction of
the optical axis and the cam grooves do not and there is no
suggestion in Ohnuki to modify the slots to be cam grooves.
Ohnuki discloses a different solution to the problem of
preventing skew. It appears that the examiner's reason to modify
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 10 -
Ohnuki comes from appellant's disclosure rather than from the
references or from what was known by the artisan.
Hummel and Bornhorst show structure to maintain a movable
tubular member centered in a stationary tubular member. Neither
reference shows a cam mechanism or cam grooves which are
circumferentially aligned and offset in the optical axis
direction to prevent skew. Therefore, Hummel and Bornhorst are
not relevant to the rejection.
We agree with the examiner that Furusawa, Ito, and Nakagawa
show "that it is a common and well known mechanical expedient in
this art to provide plural guide grooves and pins so as to
constrain movement of a member to a desired direction"
(Examiner's Answer, page 9). However, none of these references
has anything to do with a cam mechanism having cam grooves which
are circumferentially aligned and offset in the optical axis
direction to prevent skew. Therefore, Furusawa, Ito, and
Nakagawa are not relevant to the rejection.
For the reasons stated above, the rejections of claims 1-11
and 21 is reversed.
Claims 12-19
We will sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 16. The
guide frame 1 having a guide slot 2 in Ohnuki corresponds to the
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 11 -
"stationary annular member having a guide groove formed thereon"
in claim 12. The drive means 7 in Ohnuki, "which corresponds to
a cam cylinder or an operating ring" (col. 2, lines 54-55),
corresponds to the "annular cam member" in claim 12. The drive
means 7 in Ohnuki has a cam groove (col. 2, lines 54-62) which
corresponds to the "first cam groove" in claim 12. The moving
frame 3 in Ohnuki corresponds to the "movable annular member" in
claim 12 and is "attached to said annular cam member" through the
sliding member 4 and driven pin 6 in figures 1-3 or through the
sliding pin 5 in figures 4-6. In figures 4-6 of Ohnuki, the
axial pin 5a corresponds to the "first cam pin" in claim 12 and
the collar 5a of resin material in Ohnuki corresponds to the
"guide piece" unified with the first cam pin in claim 12.
Claim 12 does not recite that the guide piece is elongated in the
direction of the guide groove, nor does it recite that the guide
piece functions to prevent skewing. Since claim 16 recites that
guide piece is formed in a non-circular shape, claim 12 permits
the guide piece to be in a circular shape like collar 5a.
Alternatively, in the embodiment of figures 1-3 of Ohnuki, it
would have been obvious to extend the driven pin 6 through the
sliding member 4 to attach to the moving frame 3 in view of the
showing of pin 5 in figure 4 extending through the guide groove
and the cam groove at the same time. Under this alternative
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 12 -
reasoning, the sliding member 4 in Ohnuki corresponds to the
"guide piece installed in a structure unified with said first cam
pin" in claim 12 and member 4 has a "non-circular cross sectional
shape" as recited in claim 16.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 24):
OHNUKI does not disclose a guide piece structurally unified
with the first cam pin as recited herein. Nor does OHNUKI
disclose movable annular member attached to the annular cam
member. As can clearly be seen in the drawings of OHNUKI,
in each instance, the stationary member is intermediate the
movable member and the cam member.
The collar 5a in figure 4 corresponding to the "guide piece" is
structurally unified with the pin 5a. Also, the sliding member 4
attached to the driven pin 6 corresponds to the "guide piece
installed in a structure unified with said first cam pin." As
previously noted, it would have been obvious to extend the pin 6
through the member 4 in figure 1 to attach to the moving frame 3
in view of the showing of pin 5 in figure 4 extending through the
guide groove and the cam groove at the same time.
The moving frame 3 in Ohnuki corresponds to the "movable
annular member" and is "attached to said annular cam member in
such a manner as to permit said movable annular member to be
movable in an optical axis direction" because it is attached to
drive means 7, corresponding to the "annular cam member," through
sliding member 4 and driven pin 6 in figure 1 or through pin 5 in
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 13 -
figure 4. The term "attached to" means connected and does not
specifically require that the movable annular member be mounted
touching the annular cam member. However, it would have been
obvious to mount the annular cam member between the stationary
annular member and the movable annular member in view of Kohmoto,
which discloses an annular cam ring 20 disposed between a
stationary barrel 14 having straight guide grooves 14a (figure 2)
and a front lens group frame (lens barrel) 21. The arrangement
in Kohmoto is reversed from appellant's figure 3 where the
stationary annular member is on the inside; however, claim 12
does not recite the order of the stationary annular member, the
annular cam member, and the movable annular member and so does
not distinguish over Ohnuki or Kohmoto. Note that in Kohmoto two
pins 21b extend from frame 21 through the cam groove 20a in cam
ring 20 and into the straight guide grooves 14a, similar to
appellant's arrangement except that Kohmoto does not disclose a
guide piece fitted into the guide groove.
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejection of
claims 12 and 16.
Claim 13 recites a "second cam groove being positioned
circumferentially aligned with said first cam groove and offset
from said first cam groove in the optical axis direction," which
is the same limitation we found to be missing from the
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 14 -
combination of references in the rejection of claims 1 and 21.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 13 and claims 14,
15, and 17-20, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 15 -
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-11, 13-15, and 17-21 are
reversed.
The rejections of claims 12 and 16 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
- 16 -
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1941 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 22091