Appeal No. 2002-1831
Application No. 08/841,320
training an operator in processes related to assembling auto-
parts. A basic understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 7, respective copies of
which appear in the APPENDIX to the main brief (Paper No. 29).
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Nokajima et al. 4,937,929 Jul. 3, 1990
(Nokajima)
Yamamoto et al. 5,319,840 Jun. 14, 1994
(Yamamoto)
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Nokajima.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nokajima in view of Yamamoto.
1 In the answer (page 2), the examiner points out that a
rejection of claims 11 and 12 (sic, claims 10 and 11) under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and a rejection of claims 1, 3,
5, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nokajima in view of Yamamoto, have each been withdrawn.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007