Appeal No. 97-1754
Application 08/462,133
either directly by conveyor 40 to a similar unloading station
on the opposite side of the apparatus for unloading articles
onto outbound lanes, or to a storage area 41 to be held for
use later as desired. As can be seen in Figure 2, storage
areas defined in part by the empty tray stacking table 60 and
the filled tray stacking table 62 are not in spaced vertical
relation to each other.
In rejecting claim 2, the examiner has taken the position
on page 4 of the answer that it would have been obvious “[t]o
modify the apparatus of Chiappe et al so as to provide means
to feed a pallet full of trays to the elevator area” in view
of Murphy, and “[t]o modify the apparatus of Chiappe et al so
as to move the transfer head, as claimed” in view of Mojden.
However, even if it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Chiappe in the manner proposed by
the examiner in light of the teachings of the secondary
references, a prima facie case of obviousness would not ensue.
This is so because none of the applied references discloses,
suggests or implies an empty pallet staging area and a filled
pallet staging area, each extending normally to the elevator
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007