Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
is readable on, and therefore anticipated by, the apparatus or
machine disclosed in each of Westerling, Raudat, Wayne, and
Golantsev. We agree.
Appellants’ argument regarding each of the patents applied
by the examiner against claim 23 is that they do not teach or
suggest a drive assembly that decelerates the lift table as the
lift table approaches the lowered position. The examiner’s
response to appellants’ argument is to note that in each instance
the lift table of the respective patents applied against claim 23
is driven downwardly from a lifted position to a lowered position
and subsequently comes to a stop at the lowered position. Given
that each of the lift tables goes from being downwardly moving to
a stop at the lowered position, the examiner concludes that the
lift table in each instance must inherently decelerate before
coming to rest at the lowered position, and would thereby reduce
shock loading of the lift table, at least to some extent. The
examiner explains that, as a matter of physics, an object going
from a state of motion to a state of rest must of necessity
decelerate for a period of time (however small) before reaching
its state of rest.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007