Appeal No. 2001-2332
Application 08/909,249
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 29, mailed February 27, 2001) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
27, filed November 13, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 31, filed
April 25, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claims 29, 30
and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herman
in view of Hansen and anyone of Goransson, Colamussi and Warren,
we note that on page 3 of the answer the examiner has urged
(without making appropriate factual findings) that it would have
been obvious to move the articles (presumably the molded articles
25 described at col. 3, lines 49-64 of Herman) from station (4)
in Herman with a reciprocating assembly and place them on another
reciprocating assembly in view of the teaching in Hansen to move
articles with a reciprocating gantry (44) and place them in a
reciprocating bin (20). In this regard, the examiner directs us
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007