Appeal No. 1997-1669
Application No. 08/185,649
addition of Jentzsch to teach a spring loaded wiper plate does
not overcome or provide for the deficiencies we have noted
above regarding the proposed combination of Stone, Otson,
Chlosta ‘733, Smith, Lorch, Fujitsuka, Natelson or Yamano and
Jentzsch to thereby result in the transport device of claim 16
on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain 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, Natelson or Yamano and Jentzsch.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is
that of claim 21 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 13 above,
and further in view of Chlosta ‘436. The examiner relies
(answer, page 9) on the combination of Stone, Otson, Chlosta
‘733, Smith, Lorch, Fujitsuka and Natelson or Yamano as set
forth above as the initial basis of the instant rejection.
The examiner notes that Stone does not teach a temperature
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007