Appeal No. 2001-2654 Page 7
Application No. 09/069,192
modification of the Admitted Prior Art does not result in an
industrial robot within the scope of claim 1. In that regard,
it is our opinion that claim 1, when read as a whole, requires
the claimed drive devices to be mounted on the manipulator
body structure (i.e., the parts of the robot that can be
moved). Since the applied prior art at best only suggests
mounting the drive devices to a stationary part of the robot
(e.g., Gorman's main frame 12 or stand 13), the applied prior
art would not have suggested the subject matter of claim 1.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007