Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s combination of
Westerling and Leibach, but instead urge that the examiner’s
reliance on Leibach does not address the limitation of
independent claim 23 argued above for patentability, i.e., that
“the drive assembly decelerates the at least one lift table as
the at least one lift table approaches the lowered position to
reduce shock loading of the at least one lift table.” Having
found this argument unpersuasive with regard to claim 23, we
likewise find it unpersuasive here for the same reasons. Thus,
the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerling in view of Leibach
is sustained.
Dependent claim 39 adds to independent claim 37, a
requirement for the lift table drive assembly to be “coupled to a
machine frame by a vibration isolating assembly.” The examiner
has rejected claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raudat in view of Leibach. However, even if we
were to agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007