Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
be operated in essentially the same manner as is already
disclosed, that is, maintaining the container in such a
position as to insure that the contents are not prematurely
unloaded, without regard for limiting the height to which it
is lifted. Furthermore, it is our opinion that to modify the
Edelhoff machine so that it operated in accordance with the
requirements of claim 2 would, in fact, subvert the objectives
of the Edelhoff invention by focusing the control system on
minimizing the height to which the container was lifted rather
than maintaining it level as long as possible. This would
operate as a disincentive for one of ordinary skill in the art
to make the examiner’s proposed modifications.
For the above reasons, the combined teachings of Edelhoff
and Tonsor fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claim 2 or, it follows,
of claims 5-7 and 11, which depend therefrom. Moreover, since
the teachings of additional references Nielson, cited against
claims 3 and 4, Edelhoff ‘767, cited against claim 12, and
Bayne, cited against claim 13, fail to alleviate the
shortcomings set forth above with regard to the combination of
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007