Appeal No. 1997-1379
Application 08/194,748
The Examiner does not completely explain how the
references are proposed to be modified to produce the claimed
subject matter. The Examiner combines general teachings of a
communication system in Nakamura, Raj, and Anders with general
teachings of a manufacturing system in Shiomi and Meyer and a
workstation loading and unloading conveyor in Scourtes in some
vague way without specifically describing how the teachings
would be combined. This does not persuade us that one of
ordinary skill in the art having the references before her or
him, and using her or his own knowledge of the art, would have
been put in possession of the claimed subject matter.
For example, the Examiner concludes (EA5): "It would
have been obvious to provide Shiomi with the teachings of the
communication system above [of Nakamura as modified by Raj and
Anders]. Note that the communication systems and detecting
means of similar design are provided at each station as taught
by Shiomi and Meyer." This does not explain how Shiomi would
be modified to provide the communication system of Nakamura,
Raj, and Anders in place of that taught in Shiomi. This also
does not explain how the teachings of Meyer are used in the
combination; Meyer seems to be tacked on as an afterthought.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007