Appeal No. 1997-1669
Application No. 08/185,649
while the racks are on the carousel of Stone. We believe that
the examiner has used improper hindsight to come to the
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the disparate teachings of
Stone, Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith, Lorch, Fujitsuka, Natelson
and/or Yamano to create the transport device of claims 13, 14,
17-19, 30-36 and 43 on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claims 13, 30 and 42 and claims 14,
17-19, 31-36 and 43 which depend therefrom under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Otson, Chlosta
‘733, Smith, Lorch, Fujitsuka, Natelson or Yamano.
Now we look to the examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stone in view of
Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith, Lorch, Fujitsuka and Natelson or
Yamano as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of
Jentzsch. The examiner relies (answer, page 8) on the
combination of Stone, Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith, Lorch,
Fujitsuka and Natelson or Yamano as set forth above as the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007