Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
have already addressed. I, therefore, conclude that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 for the reasons I discussed above.
Issue 3: The Rejections over Winn, Lam, Reichert, Baker and Kimball
To reject claims 2, 13, 26, and 30, the examiner adds Kimball.
The examiner and appellant address claims 2 and 13 separately from
26 and 30 and, therefore, so will I.
Claims 2 and 13
With respect to the rejection of claims 2 and 13, appellant’s
only argument, over and above the arguments I have already
addressed, is that Kimball teaches away from the transport conveyor
configuration of claims 1 and 12. But Kimball was not applied by
the examiner to address the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Nor is
Kimball required as evidence of obviousness with respect to the
conveyor configuration of claims 1 and 12. For the reasons
expressed above with respect to Issue 1, I conclude that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claims 2 and 13 which has not been sufficiently rebutted
by appellant.
Claims 26 and 30
With respect to claims 26 and 30, appellant acknowledges that
Kimball teaches vertical adjustment of a support frame as required
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007