Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
operation of the rollers (80, 80a) subsequent to their release of
the articles entering the case (C), since premature downward
movement of the lift table of Raudat would appear to preclude
rollers (80, 80a) from attaining a position like that seen in
Figure 3 of the patent. See column 6, lines 28-37, of Raudat for
an explanation of the operation of the rollers (80, 80a). Thus,
the examiner’s rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Raudat, and that of dependent claim 38, will not be
sustained.
Claim 45 is directed to a lift table assembly “for
supporting a case while said case is being filled with
containers” and sets forth that the lift table assembly comprises
a lift table configured to support said case, and a lift table
drive assembly operably connected to the lift table, wherein said
lift table drive assembly “controls a position of said lift table
as said case is being filled with said containers to reduce a
shock load associated with said containers impacting said case.”
Although the examiner has made little or no effort to provide any
explanation as to exactly how claim 45 on appeal is readable on
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007