Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
On the other hand, we cannot sustain the corresponding § 102
rejection based on Perobelli of claims 1-3, 5 and 15. In this
regard, claim 1 (and correspondingly claims 2, 3 and 5 which
depend therefrom) requires “a means for aligning the glass
workpiece which is supported on said glass workpiece feeding
table”, and claim 15 requires “a retractable stop on said bridge
engaging an edge of the glass workpieces on said workpiece
feeding table for aligning the glass workpieces”. The examiner
considers elements 25 or 28 of Perobelli’s apparatus to satisfy
these claimed features. We cannot agree. This is because
patentee’s aforementioned elements are not associated in any way
with stand 9 (which the examiner equates to the appellant’s glass
workpiece feeding table) or the separating sheets (which the
examiner equates to the appellant’s glass workpieces) thereon and
therefore are plainly incapable of performing the function of
aligning a workpiece on a table as required by the claims under
review.
The § 102 rejections based on Curtze and Lisec ‘555
respectively also cannot be sustained. Each of independent
claims 1 and 14 requires at least one vacuum chuck which
possesses the capability of overlapping a glass workpiece
supported on a glass workpiece feeding table when in the position
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007