Appeal No. 2000-2024
Application No. 09/059,207
We do not consider that claim 1 is unpatentable over
Keeler. Even assuming that the retrofitting of Keeler's
application mechanism 20 would not alter conveyor 22, which
corresponds to the recited first conveying means, Keeler's
attaching means 20 is not subsequently installed "over" first
conveying means 22, as required by the claim. On the other
hand, if Keeler's conveyors 22, 24 and 60 were collectively
considered to constitute the claimed first conveying means,
attaching means 20 is not "subsequently" installed over them,
but rather would be installed at the same time as conveyors 24
and 60, as part of the modular mechanism (col. 2, lines 48 to
51).
The examiner states that little patentable weight is
given the location of the attaching means (final rejection,
page 2), but specific limitations in a claim cannot be
ignored, In re Glass, 472 F.2d 1388, 1392, 176 USPQ 489, 491
(CCPA 1973). The examiner has provided no reason as to why it
would have been obvious to locate Keeler's attaching means 20
over conveyor 22, and none is apparent to us.
The rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3, 5 and 6
dependent thereon, will not be sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007