Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
references. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claim 38, the examiner relies only on the disclosure of Gartner.
However, we find nothing in Gartner, which teaches placing the
claimed dust bin below the x-y table to receive particles falling
through the perforations therein. Thus, we reverse the
examiner’s decision rejecting claim 38 under Section 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
1) the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19 through 33,
37, 40 and 42 through 44 under Section 102 is affirmed;
2) the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34 through 36
and 41 under Section 103 is affirmed; and
3) the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 38 under Section
103 is reversed.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007