Appeal No. 2000-2024
Application No. 09/059,207
given above concerning the rejection of claims 15 and 16.
While Konaka's receiver 85 is displaced as recited in steps c
and d, see col. 9, lines 46 to 64, Hardigg would not in our
view suggest displacing Konaka's receiver 85 by "progressive
pivoting," as claimed.
Rejection (5)
Bachner discloses spout-attaching apparatus in which,
following the language of claim 24, there is a pivotally 5
mounted, fluidic, piston-and-cylinder device having a
reciprocable receiver thereon (anvil 184 is rotated on shaft
200) and pneumatically extended and retracted by drive 204
(col. 12, lines 5 to 14), and a second stationarily mounted,
fluidic, piston-and-cylinder device 186 with a reciprocable
heated tool for heating a surface of the article (spout).
Bachner does not disclose (1) a first stationarily mounted,
fluidic, piston-and-cylinder device for pushing the article
into the receiver, but rather portion 208 of the receiver 184
is pushed into the article (col. 13, lines 35 to 41); and (2)
that the pivotally mounted piston-and cylinder [device], after
5It appears that in line 13, --device-- should be
inserted after "cylinder."
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007