Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
In Giladi’s illustrated embodiment, the vehicle
appears to be in the form of an attachment to a tractor.
However, in column 1, lines 53-58, Giladi expressly
recognizes that as an alternative to the attachment
embodiment, the illustrated apparatus may be a part of the
self-propelled tractor itself. Tractors of the type
disclosed in the Giladi patent conventionally have frames
for mounting the various component parts of the vehicle.
Based on the foregoing analysis, claim 15 differs from
Giladi by reciting the means for moving each platform in a
pure vertical direction, by reciting the means for moving
each platform in a pure horizontal direction perpendicular
to the long axis of the frame and by reciting that the
platforms are connected to a mid-portion of the frame.
Similarly, claim 1 differs from Giladi by reciting the
means for moving each platform purely vertically and purely
horizontally perpendicularly to the frame’s long axis, and
by further reciting that the platforms are located on a
mid-portion of the frame.
Giladi also lacks an express teaching of mounting the
platforms and their adjusting structures on the frame of
the tractor. However, such teaching is implicit in
Giladi’s disclosure to support the substantial loads
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007