Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 9
Application No. 08/396,243
In any event, as the court set forth in In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing
Haynes Int'l, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573, 1577 n.3,
28 USPQ2d 1652, 1655 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993): "when the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is the range or
value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is
properly established when the difference in range or value is
minor." See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Cardenas and Breski.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 6, 8 and 9. With
respect to claim 6, the examiner notes that Cardenas teaches a
pair of chains 56 and 59. However, as the appellants have
correctly noted, chain 99 is for moving feed zone fork 88 while
chain 56 is for moving support fork 60. Thus, Cardenas does
not fairly suggest the specific elevator mechanism set forth in
claim 6. With respect to claims 8 and 9, the examiner contends
that Cardenas discloses a "forms position sensor" at 200.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007