Appeal No. 2003-1480
Application No. 09/127,442
nor do we find, any teaching in Higasayama that would have
suggested the need, the benefit, or even possibility of such
combination. Therefore, as the combination of prior art fails to
teach or suggest the path, the handles and the velocity control
features of claim 1, as well as the similar features of
independent claims 6, 11 and 16, the Examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-20 over
Higasayama and Watanabe.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We make the following new ground of rejection for claims
1, 6, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Watanabe pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b). We only consider the
independent claims, but encourage the Examiner to consider other
claims for possible rejections over Watanabe or in combination
with other prior art.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe.
We note that the claims recite a plurality of handles along
a path an object follows which are used for controlling a
velocity of the object moving on the path. As discussed above,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007