Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of claim
45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Raudat is sustained.
Independent claim 46 defines a case packer machine including
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,
and a lift table drive assembly operably connected to the lift
table, wherein said lift table drive assembly “decelerates as
said containers fall into said case.” A careful reading of claim
46 makes clear that the lift table therein is moving “as said
containers fall into said case,” and, more specifically, that the
lift table is being decelerated “as said containers fall into
said case.” There is nothing in the examiner’s rejection (answer,
pages 4-5) which accounts for the requirement in claim 46 of a
moving lift table that is being decelerated “as said containers
fall into said case.”
Even though we have found, supra, that a deceleration of the
lift table in Raudat must inherently occur as the table therein
comes to a stop at the bottom of its range of travel, we find
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007