Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
operate different implements through a number of operations,
the examiner has not provided, and we fail to perceive, any
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated by either of these references to modify the Edelhoff
system in such a manner as to meet the terms of the claim,
that is, to provide a plurality of preselected paths for the
Edelhoff device, for such would appear to serve no purpose. A
prima facie case of obvious thus is not established by these
references with regard to claim 29, and we will not sustain
the rejection.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is sustained.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is not
sustained.
The rejections of claims 2-7, 11-13 and 29 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 are not sustained.
The rejection of claims 15-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is sustained.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007