Appeal No. 1999-1728 Page 6
Application No. 08/750,041
appellants' specifically claimed mode for providing power for
the mechanisms, i.e. "a connector carried in one of each set
of the two vertical posts carrying one of said carrier plates,
each of said connectors being connected to a source of the
flowing media" as recited in claim 11 on appeal. We note the
examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art
concerned with including electrically and pneumatically
operated working devices in Hermann's production line, would
have found it obvious to include "flowing media" operating
means in the framework modules, because "flowing media" is
another type of working device operating means, (answer, page
6). While we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one
type of power for another, such substitution would not have
suggested or taught the appellants' claimed connector
arrangement. Without some teaching or suggestion of the
appellants' claimed connector arrangement in the prior art,
the rejection would appear to rely only on impermissible
hindsight. In summary, the examiner has not provided, and we
do not find, any evidence of the specific connector
arrangement as recited in claim 11 in the prior art, and we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007