Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 24
Application No. 08/611,416
Claims 1, 16 to 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Eichenberger in view of
Johannsson for the reasons set forth above with respect to
claims 2 to 4 and 8. In addition, with regard to claims 16 to
18, we note Eichenberger's ejection device 35 and receiver
trough 21 which has an inclined feed member 23. With regard
to claim 22, we incorporate our discussion of Johannsson above
with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Eichenberger in view of Johannsson as
applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Smith. It
would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have replaced
the ejection device 35 of Eichenberger with the gripping
transfer arms 22 as suggested and taught by Smith to more
positively engage and move the tubes as set forth by the
examiner on page 7 of the answer.12
12In this appeal, the appellants have not contested the
modification of Eichenberger by Smith's teachings. The only
argument set forth by the appellants with respect to claims 19
and 20 was that Eichenberger lacks the structure set forth by
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007