Appeal No. 2006-3174
Application No. 10/488,501 3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 1, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed March 22,
2006).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramoto in
view of Serra. The examiner is of the opinion that Hiramoto
describes the invention as recited in claims 1 and 2 except that
Hiramoto does not describe a linear transport system with
toothed belts. The examiner relies on Serra for teaching
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007