Appeal No. 1999-1524 Page 7
Application No. 08/938,051
The examiner's full statement of the rejection of claim
15 is as follows (final rejection, p. 2):
[i]t would have been obvious to add the teachings of
latching means of figure 24 or 25 of van den Bergh et al
to the carries P of Linden. Note that the latching means
of van den Bergh et al releases as the lead carrier 2
begins travel through a transition or curved portion of
the patch [sic, path] of travel (see column 6 lines 12-25
of van den Bergh et al). The number of pallets moved
around the curved section at the same time is dependent
on the relative dimensions of the pallet and the radius
of the curve. If one wished to transport one large
article by the train of carriers, note figure 6 of Gyger.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 16-21) that the applied
prior art, considered alone or in combination, does not
disclose or suggest the claimed accumulating conveyor having
"two pallets releasably connected together by a clasp and a
catch."
The examiner's complete response to the appellants'
argument (answer, p. 3) was "[t]he examiner has no further
comments to make."
We have reviewed all the applied prior art (i.e.,
Linden, van den Bergh, Gyger and Jacksch) and fail to find any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007