Appeal No. 2003-0371 Page 10
Application No. 09/465,941
and lift the support means so as to unpack the assembly and position the stringers at
the jig for loading thereon. However, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to perform these steps with the Woods device in view of the teachings of
Peeler, citing Figures 1 and 2 of Peeler. We are at a loss to appreciate how the
examiner proposes to modify Woods to achieve the claimed method, particularly the
step of lifting the support member “to unpack the assembly,” or where suggestion to do
so is found in either of the references. It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of these two references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claim 17, and we will not sustain the rejection.
In the course of arriving at the above conclusions, we have carefully considered
the arguments set forth by the appellant as they apply to the claims whose rejections
we have sustained. However, with regard to those rejections we have sustained, these
arguments have not persuaded us that the examiner’s conclusion was in error. Our
position with regard to these should be apparent from the explanations we have
provided with regard to each sustained rejection.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 14-16 as being anticipated by Woods is
sustained.
The rejection of claim 10 as being anticipated by Woods is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007