Appeal No. 2003-0550
Application No. 09/580,411
lost motion connection of the claimed invention and the
corresponding structure of Carll cannot be found.
Appellant's argument in the brief (page 8) that the
reference to Carll "does not in spirit anticipate the claimed
invention," followed by what appears to be a concession that
Carll "does show and disclose on an element by element basis what
is contained in the claims" is somewhat confusing. Like the
examiner, we are of the view that appellant and Carll show
essentially the same structure for connecting the die unit
support member to the base member of their respective die cutter
apparatus and that the structure in each is capable of
functioning as a "lost motion connector," depending on the
desires of the user. There is nothing in appellant's claim 1 on
appeal which mandates that the "lost motion connection"
necessarily must be usable during operation of the die cutter
apparatus so as to shift the die cutter units relative to each
other to accommodate for uneven shrinkage in a plastic sheet of
blisters, as opposed to during set-up, with the die units
subsequently being fixed in an adjusted position. In that
regard, we note from appellant's specification, page 4, that
within a given batch of polymeric sheet material, after a first
group of blisters has been produced, the individual shrinkage
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007