Appeal No. 2002-1831
Application No. 08/841,320
According to appellant (main brief, pages 11 and 15), unlike
the claimed subject matter, Nokajima discloses two transferring
locations (positions E and I). As we see it, and consistent with
the particular claim language at issue, Nokajima discloses only a
single location and no more than a single common intersection
area for transferring a vehicle body from a first transferring
line to a second transferring line.
Obviousness
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nokajima in view of Yamamoto.
In appellant's view (main brief, pages 13 through 15 and
reply brief, page 5), the reference teachings fail to provide
motivation for their combination. We agree. As we see it, a
collective assessment of the applied patents simply would not
have been suggestive of the content of claim 4 to one having
ordinary skill in the art. From our perspective, each of the
assembly lines of the references is complete and different from
one another. More specifically, while the assembly line of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007