Appeal 2007-0293
Application 10/630,982
As can readily be seen from Figures 4 and 5 of Carl, the main body
member 10 is removably held on conveyor 25 by a “friction fit” with support
means 21 (col. 4, ll. 1-12). Of course, the chuck or main body member 10 is
capable of being removed (and disposed of if necessary) during any
shutdown (Answer 9-10).
With regard to the separate rejection of claims 5, 7, 13, and 14
(Answer 6), Appellant merely repeats the arguments set forth above (Br. 15).
Accordingly, we adopt our remarks as noted above.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellant’s arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we affirm both
grounds of rejection in this appeal based on § 103(a).
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Carl in view of White is affirmed. The rejection of claims 5,
7, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carl in view of White and the
APA is also affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013