Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 10
Application No. 08/396,243
Sensor 200, however, senses the location of the extension
section 82 (a part of the machine) rather than the forms (see
column 10, lines 40 and 41). In view of the above, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on the combined teachings of Cardenas and Breski.
Rejection (2):
The examiner contends that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to
mount the sensor of Schultz et al. on the base of
Cardenas in order to properly position a cart in
relation to the stacker of Cardenas so that the
transfer of forms to the cart can be properly
achieved. [Answer, page 8.]
We will not support the examiner's position. While
Schultz discloses a cart for receiving stacked forms, Schultz
receives the forms from an entirely different type of device
than that of Cardenas, and we find no suggestion to combine the
teachings of these two references as proposed by the examiner.
Moreover, Schultz does not teach a sensor mounted on or
adjacent the base "for sensing positioning of a cart in
operative association with said forms-supporting tines" as
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007