Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
However, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 8
and 43 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Killingbeck
and Perkins is on different footing. As pointed out by the
appellants (Brief, page 15), the combination proposed by the
examiner would not result in the subject matter recited in claims
1 through 4, 8 and 43. Specifically, we concur with the
appellants that Killingbeck and Perkins do not teach the claimed
“elongate members2 in an array...” See also Figure 2. The
examiner also has not explained how and why the combined
teachings of Killingbeck and Perkins would have rendered the use
of such features in the claimed subject matter obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we are constrained to
reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 4, 8
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Killingbeck and Perkins.
CLAIMS 5-7 AND 15-17
The disclosures of the Killingbeck and Perkins references
have been discussed above and in the Answer. The examiner
recognizes that they do not teach “two conveyors for reusing the
2 The claimed elongate members are defined at pages 13-15 of
the specification.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007