Appeal No. 2004-0595
Application No. 09/747,201
such as the trolley 42 of Schram. Rather, the claim language
specifically requires that the X-Y stage of the bed "causes the
effector to pull the flat object from the cassette mounted in the
mounting means." Manifestly, the X-Y movement of Schram's bed
does not cause effectors 50 and 52 to pull the flat objects from
the cassette. Since Mallory, relied on by the examiner for the
separate rejection of dependent claim 10, does not cure this
deficiency, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of claims
1-10 and 21.
The examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 11-20 and 22 are
another matter. Independent claims 11 and 22, directed to the
X-Y stage only, do not require that the X-Y movement of the bed
causes the movement of the effectors. The claims only require
"the effector being attached to the bed and being rotatable about
a Z-axis with respect to the bed." As properly explained by the
examiner, the effectors of Schram are attached to the bed. While
the examiner appreciates that Schram does not disclose that the
effectors are rotatable about the Z-axis, we concur with the
examiner that Wooding evidences that imparting such rotating
movement to the effectors of Schram would have been a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Although
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007