Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for
essentially the reasons set forth at pages 12 through 18 of the
Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
As is apparent from pages 4 through 14 of the Answer, the
examiner acknowledges that Yoshimura, Takane and Baccini do not
teach “a tray drawer device for drawing trays from the rack [for
vertically aligning the plurality of trays] according to a
predetermined order, and rails arranged to guide a tray drawing
operation of the tray drawer device” and “a driver for driving
the rack to be raised and lowered in a vertical direction” in the
claims on appeal. See claims 1, 5 and 6. To remedy these
deficiencies, the examiner asserts (Answer, pages 6 and 7) that:
One skilled in the art would have readily
appreciated that while Takane et al has a rack (31)
with slots for holding individual ceramic green sheets
(10) and a sheet drawing device (35) for drawing the
individual sheets from the slots, such a rack would be
readily capable and/or adaptable for the slots to hold
trays with a plurality of ceramic green sheets inside
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007