Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
“wherein said motor lowers said lift table as said case is being
filled with said containers, and wherein said motor decelerates
said lift table as said lift table reaches a lowered position.”
Like appellants (brief, page 6), we find that Westerling
only discloses or teaches moving cases or bins (B) after they
have been packed with bulk fruit or after they have been emptied
of such fruit. There is nothing in the Westerling patent which
teaches or suggests a lift table assembly “for supporting a case
while said case is being filled with containers,” and a drive
assembly for such a lift table including a motor which lowers the
lift table “as said case is being filled with said containers.”
Contrary to the examiner’s view set forth on page 9 of the
answer, we do not see that depositing a top bin (B5) atop a lower
bin (B6) to form a stack of bins, as shown in Figure 27 of the
Westerling patent, is in any way responsive to the subject matter
of appellants’ claim 41. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Westerling will not be
sustained.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007