Appeal No. 97-0165 Page 5
Application No. 08/222,808
invention, stating that the “apparatus has been built, sold and
used with the energy and current values as claimed” [reply
brief-page 4], appellants do not challenge the obviousness of
employing such values nor do appellants challenge the
examiner’s official notice of Lambert’s law and the conclusion
therefrom that it would have been obvious to employ the claimed
values. Accordingly, since appellants make no substantive
argument persuasive of the nonobviousness of the energy and
current values claimed, we accept the examiner’s view in this
regard.
With regard to the claimed drive path and the driver,
claim 7 calls for “a drive path through which a truck passes
with a driver of the truck driving the truck.” We agree with
the examiner that Bermbach clearly teaches this limitation, as
broadly claimed. In Bermbach, the driver of the truck drives
the truck up the ramp 28 onto the conveyor 4 and pallet 6 and
the driver drives the truck off the apparatus when the
inspection is finished. The conveyor, ramp and pallet are all
part of the “drive path” of the vehicle. Accordingly, the
driver of the vehicle in Bermbach does, indeed, drive the truck
along at least part of the drive path through which the truck
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007