Appeal No. 1999-1533 Page 12
Application No. 08/666,948
For the reasons set forth above, Lachaussee and Mizuta do
not meet the above-noted limitation of claim 1 and therefore
do not anticipate claim 1. In light of the foregoing, the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 1, as well as claims
2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2,
18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As set forth above, all the limitations of claim 1 are
not present in either Lachaussee or Mizuta. We have reviewed
the applied prior art (including the reference to Hollis
applied in the rejection of claim 2) but find nothing therein
which would have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
arrived at that claimed invention. Specifically, the applied
prior art does not teach or suggest "a mechanism for moving
said members in said direction with said assembled part being
configured to be conveyed without rotation and guided through
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007