Appeal No. 96-1603
Application 08/057,989
support or that it prevents applied force from being
transmitted to the table and as such in our view the examiner
has not met his burden. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claim 15 or claims 16-18
dependant therefrom.
We turn finally to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Blatt. We find that Blatt discloses a work holder platform or
table 40 which includes a feed screw 24 and a motor 27 for
rotating the feed screw 24. A feed nut 26 is threadably
engaged with the feed screw 24 (See Fig. 4). A block 30 is
fixedly mounted to the feed nut 26 (Col. 4, lines 46-47).
There is also disclosed a slide mechanism (38,42) between
block 30 and table 40 (Col 5, lines 9-11). This slide
mechanism is slidable in a horizontal direction transverse to
the axial direction of the feed screw (Col. 6, lines 8-12).
In view of these findings, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Blatt.
Appellant argues that Blatt does not disclose a block
mounted integrally with the feed nut. However, the appellant
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007