Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 20, mailed September 17, 2002) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief
(Paper No. 19, filed August 26, 2002) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's various rejections of claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we note that this claim is directed
to a case packer machine including a lift table assembly having a
lift table, and a lift table drive assembly driving the lift
table between a lifted position and a lowered position, wherein
the drive assembly “decelerates” the lift table as the lift table
approaches the lowered position to reduce shock loading of the
lift table. It is the examiner’s view that appellants’ claim 23
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007