Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 7
Application No. 09/348,400
attention of an inventor who is attempting to solve problems related to removing laundry
articles from a truck. This being the case, it is our conclusion that Umeda fails to meet
either of the tests, and therefore this rejection is defective on the basis that Umeda
does not constitute analogous art.
However, even considering, arguendo, Umeda to be analogous art, we do not
agree with the examiner’s theory that Heinz would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the Robin apparatus be provided with the wheeled truck moving
means disclosed by Umeda in order to allow all of the articles in the truck to be
accessed for removal by the Robin suction device. In arriving at this conclusion, we
first note that Robin evidences no concern for the suction cup being unable to access
all of sheets in the truck perhaps because, as is shown in Figure 4 and explained in
column 2, the sheets are in an essentially flat orientation in the truck, and the necessity
to search around in the truck in order to access the sheets does not exist. Even if there
were such a problem in the Robin system, it is our view that the solution suggested to
the artisan by Heinz would be to mount the laundry truck in a frame that can be moved
“to and fro . . . [and] up and down,” which is the manner in which Heinz solves this
problem. We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in Heinz which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Robin system by providing a
means for moving gripping the truck and causing it to move horizontally, as is disclosed
in the Umeda loading system, if for no other reason than this one-dimensional
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007