Appeal No. 2003-0693
Application No. 09/006,248
(6) The second § 103 rejection of claims 29, 31, 33 and 41
We do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 29, 31 33 and
41 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Susnjara.
In this instance, appellants’ argument on page 25 of the main
brief that the applied prior art does not disclose or suggest a
base having a fluid distributing manifold, fluid paths connected to
said manifold and extending through an interior of the arms, and a
robotic member moving the base, as required by claim 29, is
persuasive.
Kawai is directed to a two-arm type manipulator wherein the
arms are powered by electric motors such as motors 21-23 mounted
intermediate the ends of the arms. The motive power of the motors
is transmitted to the grippers 50 located at the ends of the arms
by means of a series of drive shafts and gears, such as the shafts
202 and gears 204, 205 shown in Figure 3. Susnjara teaches an arm
assembly powered by hydraulic and/or pneumatic fluids. We find no
suggestion in the combined teachings of these references for the
major overhauling and reworking of Kawai that would be required in
order to arrive at the subject matter of claim 29, aside from the
impermissible guidance from appellants’ own disclosure. Since the
evidence relied upon by the examiner in this rejection would not
have been suggestive of the content of, in particular claim 29, the
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007