Appeal No. 2002-0377 Page 8
Application No. 09/123,908
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 33-37) that the above-noted modification of
Perry by the teachings of Head does not arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically,
the appellants point out that the modified system of Perry still lacks the claimed
branching devices.5 We agree.
On pages 3-4 of the response to remand, the examiner correctly points out that
the turnstiles 31 of Perry (i.e., the branching devices) selectively branch the pallets 33
based on both the address device 35 on each pallet and the number of pallets in queue
at a work station (see column 6, lines 34-49). However, the claimed branching devices
are not readable on the turnstiles 31 of Perry since the turnstiles are not adapted to
5 Claim 1 recites that each branching device is adapted to selectively branch the items dependent
upon neighboring ones of the branching devices for optimizing transport distance and time. Claim 18
recites that under a decentralized control, setting a branching direction of the branching device depending
on a result obtained in the comparing step and depending upon activities of neighboring ones of the
branching devices.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007