Appeal No. 2000-1841
Application 09/016,738
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection
The examiner (see page 3 in the answer) considers claim
14 to be indefinite due to a lack of clear antecedent basis
for the term “said front links.” A review of the claim
indicates that the term in question actually is “said front
tilt link,” and that it does indeed lack a proper antecedent
basis. The appellants,
in apparent acquiescence to the examiner’s position, have
chosen
not to dispute the rejection (see page 2 in the main brief).
Accordingly, we shall summarily sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 14.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Shook, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
loader vehicle 11 comprising a vehicle body 17, an operator
station 12,
a bucket 13, lift arms 14, hydraulic lift jacks 19, forward
levers 23, links 26, crank arms 29, links 31 and tilt jacks
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007