Ex Parte WEIR - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2002-2047                                                              Page 4               
             Application No. 09/348,400                                                                             


                           (b) placing the laundry truck from a first position spaced                               
                           away from a gripping device to a second position adjacent                                
                           the gripping device; and                                                                 
                           (c) moving the laundry truck relative to movement of the                                 
                           gripping device.                                                                         
                              The Rejections Based Upon Robin, Umeda and Heinz                                      
                    The examiner has concluded that the subject matter recited in independent                       
             apparatus claims 1, 22, 54, 81 and 82, independent method claim 28, and dependent                      
             claims 2-5, 23, 24, 29, 30, 83, 84, 113 and 114, would have been obvious2 in view of                   
             the combined teachings of Robin, Umeda and Heinz. It is the examiner’s view that                       
             Robin discloses all of the subject matter recited in these claims except for the means to              
             move the cart and the nip conveyor.  However, the examiner takes the position that it                  
             would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide means to move                   
             the cart in the Robin system in view of the teachings of Umeda and the nip conveyor in                 
             view of Heinz, with Heinz also cited by the examiner as providing the suggestion to add                
             the Umeda cart to the Robin system.                                                                    

                    2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
             one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
             (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to  
             provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
             to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,  
             973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,  
             suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
             ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
             Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).  









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007