Appeal No. 2001-2526
Application No. 08/823,183
located on the side of the conveyer system and suffers from the disadvantages
discussed by appellants’ background section. From our review of Nakamura, we agree
with appellants that Nakamura teaches the mounting of the tag so as to be read from
the side by a sensor. Appellants argue that the reader of McJohnson is for a static bar
code reader and that McJohnson teaches the use of a system for reading where
movement of the boxes and barcodes would generate dust particles and would interfere
with the manufacturing process. (McJohnson at column 1.) Additionally appellants
argue that neither imaging system of Nakamura and McJohnson teaches to direct
upwardly its imaging device. (See brief at pages 6-7.) Appellants argue that the
imaging device in McJohnson is a CCD element which is arranged to receive horizontal
light. We agree with appellants on all of the above arguments.
Additionally, appellants argue that there is no suggestion or motivation to
combine the teachings of Nakamura and McJohnson. (See brief at pages 5-7.) We
agree with appellants, that the examiner has not adequately set forth a convincing
motivation, suggestion or line of reasoning for combining the teachings of McJohnson
with those of Nakamura. From our review of the examiner’s answer, we find no
statement by the examiner in the statement of the rejection of a convincing motivation,
suggestion or line of reasoning for combining the teachings of McJohnson with those of
Nakamura.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007