Appeal No. 1997-3515 Application No. 08/390,226 arranged substantially parallel with the track with each unit being associated with one of the housings and its track segment and including means for imposing at least one magnetic field within the respective housing to magnetically translate the carrier through the housing along the respective track segment via the wheels, and a controller for opening and closing the valves and moving the magnetic fields according to a predetermined sequence. Independent claim 16 sets forth the invention in slightly different terms, but contains the same limitations. The examiner’s position is that all of the structure recited in claim 1 is found in either Norman or Bloomquist, except for the magnetic drive system, but that replacing the mechanical drive systems disclosed in these two references would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Belna, Kita and Kawaguchi. As we assess the rejection, the dispositive issue is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have found suggestion in the applied prior art to replace the mechanical transport mechanisms disclosed in Norman and Bloomquist with the 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007