Appeal No. 1998-0223
Application No. 08/351,749
if it has been properly brought here by reason of appeal is
regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our
function as a court to decide disputed issues, not to create
them.”).
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellants elect claims 1 to
8, 15 and 16 to stand or fall together. Therefore we treat
them as a single group. We take claim 1 as representative of
the group. The Examiner gives a lucid explanation of the
rejection at pages 3 to 5 of the Examiner's Answer. The
Examiner asserts, id at page 5, that "[t]his teaching of
Humble et al. ['343] would have made it obvious . . . , as a
substitute of art recognized equivalents, to permit operation
of the conveyor only after the weight and code of the article
are found to coincide." The Examiner admits that Humble '343
does not show the claimed feature of the conveyor control
means which permits the movement of the conveyor only after
said confirmation signal is produced, and inhibits the
operation of said conveyer means to prevent conveying of the
article until said confirmation signal is produced. The
Examiner relies on the assertion that this feature would have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007