Appeal No. 2004-0376 Page 9
Application No. 09/457,286
As set forth above in our review of the anticipation based on van Elten, van Elten
does not disclose a transporter enclosed by and moveable within a substantially
enclosed cabinet for transporting products between the product conveyors and the
infeed/outfeed mechanism as set forth in claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14, 16 and 18 to 20.
The teachings of Yuyama would not have made it obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified van Elten to
have a transporter enclosed by and moveable within a substantially enclosed cabinet for
transporting products between the product conveyors and the infeed/outfeed
mechanism as set forth in claims 3 to 6, 9 to 12, 15, 16 and 20. Accordingly, the
examiner has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3 to
6, 9 to 12, 15, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van Elten in
view of Yuyama is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14, 16
and 18 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by van Elten is reversed;
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14, 16 to 24 and 26 to 29
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007