Ex parte LYLES et al. - Page 10




          Appeal No. 96-1692                                                          
          Application 08/156,811                                                      



          chassis for the car/vehicle is moving down the assembly line,               
          with that selection being immediately followed by connection of             
          the selected drive system to the chassis in the drive system                
          receiving area.  The particular assembly methods as defined in              
          appellants' claims on appeal are simply not taught or suggested             
          by the prior art references applied by the examiner.                        
          Accordingly, based on the reference evidence provided by the                
          examiner, we are constrained to reverse.                                    


                    In light of the foregoing, the examiner's respective              
          rejections of appealed claims 1 through 5, 20 and 21 under                  
          35 U.S.C.  102(b) will not be sustained.                                   


                    To summarize our decision, the examiner's rejection of            
          claims 1 through 5, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.  112, second                 
          paragraph, has been reversed;                                               


                    the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 20 and             
          21 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being clearly anticipated by                 
          Gardner has been reversed; and                                              



                                          10                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007