Appeal No. 2003-1639 Page 4
Application No. 09/496,220
presenting the sample carrier to a shuttle table of the shuttle apparatus
from a mating support structure having one degree of freedom;
engaging the bottom surface of the sample carrier with the shuttle table;
moving the shuttle apparatus; and
presenting the sample carrier to the mating support structure,
wherein the presenting of the sample carrier to the shuttle table further
comprises
allowing the mating support structure to pass through the shuttle table, the
mating support structure passing through a void of the shuttle table to transfer
the sample carrier.
The examiner's complete statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (final
rejection, p. 2) applicable to claims 1 and 13 is:
It would have been obvious that the articles being conveyed by the carrier
51 on shuttle 33, 34 and mating supports 25, 26, 29, 30 could be samples. It
would have been further obvious that the shuttle drive could be designed for only
horizontal movement if the mating supports are provided with vertical movement
drive means to cause the article transfer to/from the shuttle as taught by shuttle
14 and mating supports 11 of Garrett instead of having the shuttle 33, 34 of
Shiraiwa having both horizontal and vertical drives while the mating supports 25,
etc. had no movement.
The appellants argue that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal. We agree.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007