Appeal No. 2003-1639 Page 3
Application No. 09/496,220
mailed March 6, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 28, filed February 20, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 30, filed May 12, 2003) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 to 6, 11, 13, 15 and 18 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
Claims 1 and 13, the only independent claims on appeal, read as follows:
1. A shuttle apparatus for transferring sample carriers, comprising:
a shuttle table, the shuttle table having a mating section with a void, the
mating section being adapted to receive a sample carrier; and
a mating support structure having one degree of freedom adapted to
travel vertically through the void in the mating section, thus transferring the
sample carrier from the mating section to the mating support structure.
13. A method of retrieving and presenting a sample carrier with a shuttle
apparatus comprising the steps of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007