Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 8
Application No. 09/348,400
movement would not allow the suction device to access the entire floor area of the
truck. From our perspective, the only suggestion for modifying Robin in the manner
proposed by the examiner is found in the hindsight afforded on who first viewed the
appellant’s disclosure.
For the reasons set forth above, Robin, Umeda and Heinz fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
independent claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of this claim or of claims 2-5,
which depend therefrom.
Independent claim 22 requires that there be a drive operatively connected with
the laundry truck to moveably position the truck with respect to the frame, and also
stands rejected on the basis of Robin, Umeda and Heinz. On the basis of the
reasoning applied above with regard to claim 1, we also will not sustain the rejection of
claim 22 or of claims 23, 24 and 113, which depend therefrom and are rejected on the
same grounds.
We shall, however, sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent method
claim 28, for in our view all of the steps recited in this claim are taught by Robin, and
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215
USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982). However, since the reasoning we advance for sustaining this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007