Appeal No. 2003-0204 Page 3
Application No. 09/096,123
the identified part (column 2, lines 60-63); an output device (via 34) coupled to
the controller to receive an output signal from the controller (column 5, lines
59-62). DePoint does not disclose the output device being operative to
communicate to the operator at least one of an audible and a visual output of the
instruction for packaging the identified part. However, it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
modified DePoint's packaging system by having the output device being
operative to communicate to the operator at least one of an audible and a visual
output of the instruction for packaging the identified part, as a matter of
engineering design choice since the Examiner takes official notice that the
mentioned devices are old, well known, and available in the art to use together
with an automated system or computer.
On pages 8-9 of the brief (Paper No. 27, filed May 22, 2002), the appellants
argue that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
because there is no teaching or suggestion of why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to have modified DePoint to arrive at the claimed invention.
On page 4 of the answer (Paper No. 28, mailed July 17, 2002), the examiner's
response to the argument set forth in the brief was as follows:
Appellants argue that DePoint's reference discloses an automated
packaging apparatus that uses a robot to perform certain packaging operations,
there is totally lacking any reason the ordinary skilled person would have
considered adding such an output device for providing audible or visual
instructions to an operator. The examiner believes that it would be obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to modify DePoint's apparatus by adding such an
output device for providing audible or visual instructions to an operator for further
check up and to follow up with the process step while the process is running
(Note, a good example for something similar to that is the McDonald's ordering
person replace the order and through the output device (screen) follows up with
the process). The examiner also believes that DePoint could replace the robot by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007