Appeal No. 2002-0074 Page 17
Application No. 08/800,758
reasons adequately set forth above with respect to claims 11 and 12. Moreover, this
language does not appear in claim 15. Additionally, as can be seen in Figure 1 of
Evans, both the upper conveyor 50 and the lower conveyor 50 of pallet 24 are level with
the adjacent stringers 30 of rack 20. Thus, we sustain the examiner's rejection of
appealed claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 16
With respect to independent claim 16, the appellants argue (brief, p. 8) that the
limitation "a moving structure capable of moving horizontally in the longitudinal direction
of said vertical installation structure, said moving structure including second stages on
which at least one apparatus is to be placed, said second stages being vertically
arranged and each of said second stages being level with a corresponding one of said
first stages of said vertical installation structure" is not met by Evans. We do not agree
for the reasons adequately set forth above with respect to claims 11, 12 and 15.
Moreover, this language does not appear in claim 16. Thus, we sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11 and 14 to 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11 to
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007