Appeal No. 2000-2161
Application No. 08/933,319
performing a third activity on the second electronic
assembly in the dynamically reconfigured first placement
workcell.
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Tsuji et al. (Tsuji) 5,329,690 Jul. 19,
1994
Claims 11 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Tsuji.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed October 7, 1999) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed June 5, 2000) for the
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants'
1In the advisory action mailed December 14, 1999 (Paper
No. 10), the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 11
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007