Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
As for the examiner’s alternative rejections of claims 27
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we agree with appellants’ arguments
on pages 10-11 of the brief regarding the rejection of these
claims based on Westerling alone and will not sustain that
rejection. However, we will sustain the rejection of claims 27
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Westerling in view of
Hjalmer. As is clear from page 11 of the brief, appellants have
not disputed the examiner’s combination of Westerling and Hjalmer
except to urge that the limitation of claim 23 regarding a drive
assembly which “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” is not taught or
suggested in Westerling. Having found that argument unpersuasive
with regard to independent claim 23, we likewise find it
unpersuasive here for the same reasons. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Westerling in view of Hjalmer is
sustained.
20
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007