Appeal No. 2004-0588
Application No. 09/387,174
time of the invention to combine the two teachings regarding only the material handling
as with the claimed invention. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness of the combination of teachings since the examiner
has not shown in the statement of the rejection and arguments a convincing line of
reasoning for the asserted combination. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 12 and their dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007