Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
would have suggested the modifications called for by the
appealed claims. See In re Bascom, 230 F. 2d 612, 614, 109
USPQ 98, 100 (CCPA 1956).
With regard to the location where the platforms are
connected to the frame, appellant has not taken issue with
the examiner’s position that the connection of the
platforms to a mid-portion or mid-section of the frame
would have been an obvious expedient to enhance stability
of the vehicle as discussed on pages 3 and 4 of the
examiner’s answer. Instead, appellant is content with
arguing that Giladi lacks a mid-section (see page 16 of the
main brief) and, moreover, that “there is no basis in
Giladi to assume the existence of a frame . . .” (main
brief, page 14). We disagree.
As noted supra, we rely on Giladi’s teaching that the
platform and adjustment apparatus may be a part of the
self-propelled tractor itself, and that such tractors
conventionally incorporate a frame having a mid-section.
As discussed supra, the concept of mounting the platforms
and their adjusting structures on the frame of the Giladi’s
tractor is either implicit in Giladi’s teachings or would
have been obvious from those teachings. With regard to the
location at which these component parts are mounted on the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007