Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
at the periphery of the turntable. Coffey describes the
relationship between the wheel units and turntable as follows:
The margin of the table is supported by a series of
pairs of rollers 21 in tandem which are adapted to
run on a circular rail 22. Each pair of rollers is
journalled in a bracket 23. The brackets 23 extend
circumferentially under the radial beams 15, 16 in
such a manner that said beams bear on the brackets
respectively. Each bracket 23 is recessed, as at
24, to receive the lower flange of one of the radial
beams, and is provided with lugs 25 between which
said flange is confined. Each bracket 23, below the
beam flange, is provided with a central abutment 26,
on which the lower face of said flange bears. This
construction forms a connection between the bracket
and the beam which permits the bracket to slightly
tilt vertically, so that the load will be equalized
on both rollers of a pair, and will also permit the
rollers to accommodate themselves to any slight
irregularity in the rail 22. [Page 1, lines 58-79.]
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Coffey, it
is not clear which element(s) of Coffey the examiner considers
as corresponding to the claimed “pie-shaped panel units.” For
example, at several places the examiner refers to plates 185
as panel units, while at other places the examiner appears to
refer to Coffey’s plates 18 and beams members 15, 16 as panel
5 See, for example, final rejection, page 2 (“Note pie-
shaped panel units (18) . . .” and final rejection, page 5
(“As the panel units 18 are secured to the beams 15, 16 . .
.”).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007