Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
invention to include a vibration isolating assembly as taught in
Leibach in the invention of Raudat to damp vibrations (answer,
page 6), such a modification of the case packer in Raudat would
still not provide response for the limitation in claim 37
regarding a lift table drive assembly which “lowers said lift
table as said case is being filled with containers.” Accordingly,
the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raudat in view of Leibach
will also not be sustained.
Claims 27, 28 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
on alternative grounds, i.e., as being unpatentable over
Westerling alone or as being unpatentable over Westerling in view
of Hjalmer. Claims 27 and 28 each depend from claim 26, which
depends from independent claim 23, with claim 27 requiring that
the spur gear of claim 26 be “comprised of a non-metallic
material,” while claim 28 specifies that the spur gear of claim
26 is “comprised of a nylon material.” Claim 40 depends from
independent claim 37 and sets forth details of the lift table
drive assembly which includes, inter alia, a spur gear and a rack
gear, each of which are “comprised of a non-metallic material.”
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007