Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 13
Application No. 09/348,400
However, we further point out that the examiner’s contention that Rosenfeld
discloses two sets of grippers is in error, and therefore even if all of the references were
properly combinable the result would not be the invention recited in these claims.
Rosenfeld discloses a linen sorter provided with grippers 50 equipped with
gripper arms (Figures 2 and 3, unnumbered) for grasping individual pieces of linen and
removing them from a hopper. “Pins” 74 and 76 are mounted within the operating arcs
of the gripper arms, and pin 76 is pivotable. As a suction device removes linen from the
hopper, the linen contacts pins 74 and 76, whose function is to sense whether one
piece (desired), or more than one piece (undesired), is being pulled upwardly by the
suction. We agree with the appellant that it is clear from the explanation of this
mechanism which begins at line 59 of column 6, that pins 74 and 76 do not grip the
linen pieces, but merely sense the presence of linen pieces, and therefore the
Rosenfeld apparatus has only one pair of gripping jaws. Since all of the claims under
this rejection require the presence of two sets of gripping jaws, the combined teachings
of the four references could not, in our view, establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claims 77-80, 90 and 96.
In any event, the rejection of claims 77-80, 90 and 96 is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 22-24, 29-30, 54, 81-84, 113 and 114 as being
unpatentable over Robin in view of Umeda and Heinz is not sustained.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007