Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
utilized differ from those of Edelhoff, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated by Nielson to utilize
look-up tables in the Edelhoff system as the means for
determining where the forks should be positioned, suggestion
being found in the explicit teachings of Nielson (see Abstract
and columns 4, 5, 12 and 13). It therefore is our view that
the teachings of these three references establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
claim 16, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 16 and of
claim 17, which has been grouped therewith.
Finally, claim 29 also stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Edelhoff in view of Tonsor. Among the
requirements of claim 29 is control means for controlling and
coordinating operations of the arm and fork controlling means
“along a plurality of preselectable paths of travel above the
cab.” As we stated above with regard to the Section 102
rejection of this claim, we do not agree with the examiner
that the quoted phrase constitutes an intended use, and
Edelhoff does not teach such a feature. While Tonsor
discloses a control system that contains multiple programs to
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007