Appeal No. 97-0203
Application No. 08/162,893
no disclosure of a conveyor with a photocoupler connection to
a control computer by an optical fiber as claimed.
As to dependent claims 17 and 18, Appellants are correct
in asserting that, although the Examiner grouped these claims
together with claims 12-16 in making the obviousness
rejection, claims 17 and 18 are in fact method claims which
are dependent on method claim 10. Since the Examiner has not
addressed the particulars of these claims we are constrained,
on the record before us, to agree with Appellants’ contention
that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to these claims which relate to
the method step of transmitting optical information. In view
of the above discussion, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 12-18.
In summary, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is
sustained with respect to claims 1 and 3-11 but is not
sustained with respect to claims 12-18. Accordingly, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3-18 is
affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007