Appeal No. 2002-1633
Application 09/281,093
the chip receivers 8 move. Hence, the examiner’s determination
that Stevenson’s steps 20 meet the “track” limitations in claim 1
is well taken, while the appellants’ argument to the contrary,
which is predicated on an improper reading of limitations from
the specification into the claim, is not.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Stevenson.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
dependent claims 2 and 5 as being anticipated by Stevenson since
the appellants, stating that these claims stand or fall together
with parent claim 1 (see page 7 in the main brief), have not
separately challenged the merits thereof.
Claims 6 and 14, which respectively depend from claims 2 and
1, further define the claimed collating apparatus as having at
least one “pick up arm” which selectively retrieves sample chips
from the supply bins and places them within the at least one
collection bin. Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 6, and claims
16 and 17 depend from claim 14. According to the examiner (see
pages 7 and 8 in the answer), Stevenson’s arms (presumably tines
16) constitute pick up arms because they “pick up” chips 4 from
the supply bins (reservoirs 6) and place them into the collection
bins (receivers 8). The examiner, however, has failed to proffer
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007