Appeal No. 97-1033
Application 08/190,485
permitting one operator to operate the device; minimizing the
number of personnel to a single operator would have clearly been
a desirable and expected objective based upon the traditional
goal of maximizing the efficient utilization of personnel in a
workplace. Our latter assessment presumes skill on the part of
those practicing this art, not the converse. See In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For the
above reasons, we determine that the content of each of claims 1
through 5 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
affirmed the rejection of claims 1 through 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite; and
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schuh.
Additionally, we have introduced a new rejection in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection
of one or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective
Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197
(Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122
(Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that “[a] new
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007