Appeal No. 2002-1633
Application 09/281,093
and the collection bins” (final rejection, page 4). Even if the
examiner’s taking of official notice in this regard has been
properly substantiated (the appellants contend that it has not),
there is nothing in the mere conventional knowledge of vacuum end
effectors which would have suggested the substantial modification
of the Stevenson apparatus contemplated by the examiner.
Claims 10 and 18, which respectively depend from claims 2
and 1, require the supply bins recited in these parent claims to
be “positioned in rows of at least two supply bins.” Claims 11
through 13 depend from claim 10 and claim 19 depends from claim
18. Acknowledging Stevenson’s lack of response to these
limitations, the examiner nonetheless concludes that it would
have been obvious modify the Stevenson apparatus to include such
an arrangement “since it has been held that mere duplication of
the essential working parts of a device involves only routine
skill in the art” (final rejection, page 4). As correctly
pointed out by the appellants (see pages 18 through 21 in the
main brief), however, this proposed modification would involve
far more than a mere duplication of parts. In short, the
examiner has failed to provide the factual support necessary to
conclude that the subject matter in question would have been
obvious.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007