Appeal 2006-2625
Application 10/033,879
actual speed at which the boom moves is manually controlled either by using the
drive control joystick (224) on the platform control panel (300) to proportionally
control the drive speed (Priestley, col. 8, ll. 44-48) or by activating switches (442,
446) on the keypad (252) of the ground control panel (400) (Priestley, col. 11, ll.
44-65). Thus, when the device of Priestley senses that the boom is in an extended
position, the device does not automatically move the boom at a slower speed.
Rather, as acknowledged by the Examiner, the device of Priestley merely places an
upper limit on the speed at which the boom can be moved.
Accordingly, we find that Faiman and Priestley, when combined with the
AAPA of a media library, lack the teaching or suggestion of a control component
that automatically operates robots of the media storage library at a first specified
speed when an access door is closed, and automatically reduces the speed of the
robots when the access door is open. As such, we find that one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made, possessed with the teachings of
the prior art, and facing the problem faced by the inventor, would not have been
led to the claimed invention. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, or dependent claims 2-6, under 35 USC § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the AAPA in view of Faiman and Priestley.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013