Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
nothing in Raudat which reasonable teaches or suggests that the
lift table therein is moving and being decelerated “as said
containers fall into said case.” For this reason, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Raudat
will not be sustained.
Dependent claim 25 adds to independent claim 23 that the
lift table drive assembly is “coupled to a machine frame by a
vibration isolating assembly.” The examiner has rejected claim 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerling in
view of Leibach, recognizing that Westerling does not disclose a
vibration isolating assembly associated with the drive assembly
therein and turning to Leibach to supply such a vibration
isolating assembly (2) associated with a drive assembly or engine
(4). The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention to include a vibration isolating assembly as taught in
Leibach in the invention of Westerling to damp vibrations
(answer, page 6). We agree.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007