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