Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
association with the top surface of the lift table. Like
appellants (brief, page 7), we find nothing in Raudat which
teaches or suggests a lift table drive assembly lowering the lift
table as the case is being filled with containers. Instead, it
appears that the lift table of Raudat remains stationary until
the containers (A) are deposited in the case, with the impact
absorbing means of Figures 2, 2A cushioning the containers or
articles as they fall into the case and bottom out.
The examiner’s assertion in the rejection (answer, page 4)
that the case in Raudat “is accelerated and subsequently
decelerated in a downward direction in order to absorb the impact
of the articles A” and the reference to column 1, lines 14-27 of
Raudat, do not appear to have anything to do with a drive
assembly for a lift table which operates in the particular manner
required in appellants’ claim 37 on appeal. The examiner’s
further comments on pages 9-10 of the answer with regard to when
the lift table of Raudat is started on its downward movement
appear to be based on pure speculation, and would further appear
to be contrary to the disclosure in the Raudat patent directed to
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007