Appeal No. 2002-0074 Page 12
Application No. 08/800,758
Based on our analysis and review of Evans and claim 11, it is our opinion that
there is no difference. In our view, claim 11 is anticipated by Evans when the pallet 24
is positioned as shown in Figure 1 of Evans.3 In that regard claim 11 is readable on
Evans as follows: A vertical installation system comprising:
(1) a vertical installation structure extending in a longitudinal direction, comprising:
placing stages on which information processing apparatuses are to be installed, and
supporting members supporting said placing stages so that said placing stages are
vertically arranged (Evans' storage rack 20 which extends in a longitudinal direction
along which the forklift truck 26 moves; the rack 20 includes stringers 30 on which
information processing apparatuses are capable of being installed, and stringers 36 and
38 supporting the stringers 30 so that the stringers 30 are vertically arranged); and
(2) a moving structure capable of moving horizontally in the longitudinal direction of said
vertical installation structure (Evans' pallet 24 is capable of moving horizontally in the
longitudinal direction of the storage rack by the forklift truck 26), said moving structure
comprising: stages on each of which at least one information processing apparatus is to
be placed, each of said stages being vertically arranged so as to correspond vertically
to each of said placing stages of said vertical installation structure (Evans' pallet 24
includes conveyors 50 which are vertically arranged so as to correspond vertically to
3 The examiner on page 5 of the answer noted that "[t]his interpretation [i.e., the examiner's third
interpretation of Evans which is set forth on pages 2-3 of the final rejection (Paper No. 33)] of Evans
actually anticipates many of the appealed claims."
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007