Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s respective
rejections of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by each of the patents to Westerling, Raudat, Wayne
and Golantsev is sustained. Given the lack of any argument from
appellants in the brief directed specifically to dependent claims
24, 26, 29 and 30 on appeal, we find that such claims will fall
with claim 23, from which they depend. It follows that the
examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 26, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based Westerling will also be sustained.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Westerling, we note that claim 41 defines 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;
a lift table drive assembly operably connected to the lift table
and comprising a motor, a shaft coupled to the motor, a gear
disposed on the shaft, and a rack gear pivotally attached to said
lift table in meshing arrangement with the spur gear1, and
1 There is no proper antecedent basis for “said spur gear” in line
10 of claim 41. The earlier recitation in the claim is merely to “a
gear disposed on said shaft.” This ambiguity should be addressed and
clarified during any further prosecution of the application before the
examiner.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007