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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007