Appeal No. 1997-3515
Application No. 08/390,226
five applied references fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
independent claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 or of claims 2-4, 6-13 and 15, which depend therefrom.
We also will not sustain the rejection of independent claim
16 and dependent claims 17-19, for claim 16 recites the
invention in somewhat different terms than claim 1, but
contains essentially the same limitations as are present
there, which we concluded above were not taught or suggested
by the applied references.
The Rejection Of Claims 5, 14 And 20-23
This rejection is based upon the references applied
against claim 1 et al., taken further in view of Kemmerer and
Okano. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation
of utilizing for the magnetic drive unit a plurality of
magnets mounted on an endless conveyor belt oriented parallel
to the track and being of dimension less than that of the
housing with which it is associated as measured along the
track. Okano was cited for its disclosure of a plurality of
magnets arranged on an endless conveyor located on the outside
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007