Appeal No. 1998-0253
Application No. 08/261,252
methods recited in independent claims 4, 8 and 11 stems from
improper hindsight. The examiner’s contention that the
requisite suggestion flows from a general desire to improve
efficiency (see pages 5 and 6 in the main answer) is not
sufficient in the present case. Moreover, even if made, the
proposed combination would still fail to address the tool
loading and changing limitations in claim 4 and the specific
robot locating/positioning limitations in claims 8 and 11.
There is simply no factual basis in the proposed combination
which supports the examiner’s bald conclusion that a method
embodying these features would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 4, 8 and 11, or of claims 5, 6, 9
and 12 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Hamada.
As for the second rejection, the Japanese reference
discloses a working vehicle designed to ease the task of an
automobile assembly line worker. The vehicle 1 includes a
space 1a for a worker, a shelf 2 for tools, a shelf 3 for
component parts, wheels 5, 6 for moving on rails 7 on a
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007