Appeal No. 1998-2114
Application No. 08/491,286
considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have provided such a step
because having such a step would have obviated handling errors
from the picker assembly, as would have been realized by one
having ordinary skill in the art.”
Appellants argue (brief, page 32) that the examiner has
failed to provide any evidence, whatsoever, in support of the
positions taken in the rejection, and that there is nothing in
the record to support the rejection. We agree. In view of
the lack of such evidence, and the lack of a convincing line
of reasoning to support the rejection, we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 15
for lack of a prima facie case of obviousness.
The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is reversed because
the teachings of Jenkins do not cure the noted shortcomings in
the teachings of Christie. In addition, the obviousness
rejection of claims 12 and 16 is reversed because the
teachings of Jenkins do not cure the noted shortcomings in the
teachings of Permut.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007