Appeal No. 2003-0214
Application 09/441,490
disclosed by Corsini so as to meet the particular programmable
robot limitations in independent claims 1, 27 and 30. This
evidentiary gap in the disparate teachings of the two references
finds no cure in Corsini’s broad and somewhat ambiguous statement
that “all components may be replaced with technically equivalent
elements” (column 5, lines 45 and 46). The examiner’s
implication that the sort of multi-function robot arm disclosed
by Genov would have been recognized by the artisan as an
equivalent to the collective component handling mechanisms
disclosed by Corsini is completely unfounded, and in any event
would not be dispositive since expedients which are functionally
and mechanically equivalent are not necessarily obvious in view
of one another (see In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016, 1019, 139 USPQ
297, 299 (CCPA 1963)).2
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 27 and 30, and
dependent claims 3 through 26, 28, 29 and 31, as being
unpatentable over Corsini in view of Genov.
2 As the combined teachings of Corsini and Genov fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in the appealed claims, it is not
necessary to delve into the merits of the appellants’ declaration
evidence of non-obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007