Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
We will also sustain the § 103 rejection of dependent
claim 7 based on Giladi in view of Cepparo and Harrison.
Appellant’s argument on page 22 of the main brief is not
persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized from the teachings of Harrison that the common
practice of lowering the mid-portion of the vehicle frame
lowers the center of gravity in that region to enhance the
stability of the vehicle. Skill in the art is presumed,
not the converse. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226
USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to the rejection of claim 47 based on
Giladi in view of Cepparo and Kishi, appellant argues on
page 20 of the main brief that “[t]he final rejection does
not explain how the Kishi joystick is to be incorporated in
Cepparo . . .” This argument is unpersuasive. In the
first place, the issue is whether or not it would have been
obvious to modify Giladi’s apparatus in light of the
teachings in Kishi. Moreover, as stated supra, the test
for obviousness is not whether features of one reference
can be bodily incorporated in the structure of another
7 The recitation of “said platform” (in the singular) lacks
strict antecedent basis inasmuch as parent claim 1 calls
for a plurality of platforms. Consistent with appellant’s
specification, we have interpreted claim 4 to refer to at
least one of the platforms recited in claim 1.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007