Appeal No. 1998-0253
Application No. 08/261,252
releasing the work from said at least one conveyor and
carriage after the assembly of the part with the work by the
part-assembly robot. 2
The prior art items relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Hamada et al. (Hamada) 4,674,181 Jun. 23, 1987
Monforte 4,781,519 Nov. 1, 1988
Japanese Patent Document 60-33173 Feb. 20, 19853
The prior art automotive vehicle assembly line method
described in the background discussion on pages 1 through 7 of
the appellants’ specification (the admitted prior art).
Claims 4 through 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior
art in view of Hamada.4
2The references in claim 4 and the other claims on appeal
to a conveyor “and” carriage are inconsistent with the
underlying disclosure which describes a conveyor or carriage
(element 5). This inconsistency is deserving of correction in
the event of further prosecution before the examiner.
3An English language translation of this reference,
prepared on behalf of the Patent and Trademark Office, is
appended hereto.
4In the final rejection (Paper No. 25), the examiner also
relied on U.S. Patent No. 4,977,667 to Sekimoto et al., now
withdrawn as a reference (see page 3 in the main answer, Paper
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007