Appeal No. 1997-2162
Application 08/280,430
car provides for controlled vertical movement similar to
Schauder’s elevator. In view of Schauder’s teachings, Gary’s
mobile lift would have been improved by using the height
sensors actuated by a cam on the car for automatic stopping at
the desired height. Thus, the location of Gary’s platform at
any height would have been detected by actuating a switch that
is positioned at the desired vertical location. Therefore, we
find that the Examiner has provided sufficient reason for one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine a reference providing
a height sensor switch with Gary and Nordskog’s mobile lift.
In view of the forgoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gary, Nordskog,
and Schauder is affirmed.
As a further point, we find that Gary in col. 5, lines 59
through col. 6, line 5 does teach the limit switch 14 which is
used to interrupt the lifting operation and stop the platform
once a certain height is reached. The height sensor is
further taught to include a trigger lever placed at a
predetermined height on the surrounding fixtures which
actuates a limit switch mounted on the front edge of the lift
platform. Gary further teaches that once the platform reaches
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007