Appeal No. 96-1603
Application 08/057,989
the block recited in claim 1 and the table 2 is the table
recited in claim 1. There is clearly a slide mechanism 16, 17
between the block 15 and the table 2. As there is a sliding
mechanism 16, 17 between the block or frame 15 and the table 2
Kato discloses these specific elements of claim 1. In view of
the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
We will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 11
as appellant has not argued the separate patentability of this
claim. See In re Nielson 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to claim 15 which recites in pertinent part:
. . . .force absorbing means
disposed between the table and
the support means for absorbing
the force applied to the support
means to prevent the applied
force from being transmitted to
the table.
The examiner states:
. . . the slide mechanism 16, 17
is synonymous with applicants’
force absorbing means since the
nut and screw drive for the slide
mechanism would permit movement
transverse to screw 12 when screw
12 were activated. This movement
would be present until the nut
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007