Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 9
Application No. 09/348,400
rejection differs from that set out by the examiner, we designate the rejection to be a
new rejection made under 37 CFR 1.196(b).3
Robin discloses a laundry separation system in which the laundry to be
separated is in a wheeled truck, with the apparatus being disclosed as being particularly
suitable for operation “after the washing phase and before the finishing phase” (column
1, lines 21 and 22). In our view, it is clear from this recitation, and the presence of
wheels on the truck, that this reference teaches that the laundry articles are placed in
the truck at a first location, where they had been washed, and then are moved in the
truck to a second location, where they are removed from the truck and further acted
upon by the disclosed apparatus. This being the case, the step in claim 28 of “placing
the laundry truck from a first position spaced away from a gripping device to a second
position adjacent the gripping device” is part of the Robin teachings. As for the step of
“moving the laundry truck relative to movement of the gripping device,” it is our view that
the movement of the Robins laundry truck also is “relative to movement of the gripping
device” in that the movement of the gripping device is vertical and the movement of the
truck is horizontal.
Claim 29 adds to claim 28 the step of releasably clamping the truck to a movable
carriage mounted to the frame, with the gripping device being operatively connected to
3Since Robin discloses all of the claimed subject matter, the fact that Umeda is not analogous art
is of no consequence.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007