Appeal No. 2003-0106
Application 09/502,680
“incrementally” describes in more detail exactly how the action
of increasing is achieved, i.e., in a stepwise fashion via a
series of small, incremental movements.
Since Shannon does not disclose or teach, either expressly
or inherently, each and every limitation of appellants’ claim 28
on appeal, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of that
claim, and of claims 22 and 27 through 29 which depend therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 21
through 23 and 25 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the APA in view of Shannon. In this instance,
the examiner takes the manual plate replacement process of the
APA as described above and contends that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a
process using a mobile cart or dolly like that of Shannon, which
the examiner again has asserted includes that step of “angularly
adjusting the height of the holder incrementally and thereby the
height of the at least one plate incrementally” (answer, page 4).
For the same reasons set forth above, we find that the examiner’s
error in construing the language of independent claim 28 and the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007