Appeal No. 2002-0377 Page 2
Application No. 09/123,908
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a transport system and to a method for
controlling the transport system (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal
is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Perry 3,530,571 Sept. 29, 1970
Head, III 4,884,674 Dec. 5, 1989
Claims 1 to 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based on an
inadequate disclosure.1
Claims 1 to 11 and 15 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perry in view of Head.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
1 We assume that this rejection is based on the enablement requirement found in the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. That is, the specification fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use
the invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007