Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 13
Application No. 08/396,243
For the reasons stated above, we will not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 11 and 15-19 based
on the combined teachings of Cardenas and Chandhoke (Rejection
(3)) and claim 20 based on the combined teachings of Cardenas,
Chandhoke and Schultz (Rejection (4)).
Rejections (5) through (7):
Each of these rejections is bottomed on the examiner's
view that:
Chandhoke et al. does not disclose a second forms-
engaging face or a second plurality of cart tines,
where individual cart tines are substantially co-
planar. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of [sic] the
invention was made to employ a second forms-engaging
face and a second plurality of cart tines in the
invention of Chandhoke et al., since it has been held
that the mere duplication of essential working parts
of a device involves only routine skill in the art,
and because by providing a second forms-engaging face
and a second plurality of cart tines would double the
capacity of a single cart. [Answer, page 17.]
We do not support the examiner's position. It is well
settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness the prior art teachings must be sufficient to
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art making the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007