Appeal No. 2001-2329 Page 5
Application No. 09/252,761
cab 32 includes any glass panel or window. While it may be implicit in the disclosure of
Wilderman that an operator would be able to see out of the cab 32 in order to control the
movement of the drilling unit over public highways, such does not implicitly disclose a glass
panel or window since a mere opening without a window or glass panel is sufficient for an
operator to see out of the cab. Moreover, the specific location of the glass panel as set
forth in claims 5 and 8 to 11 (i.e., between the first and second parts of the second console
wherein the first part being spaced from the second part with no console part in between)
is clearly not taught by Wilderman.
Second, claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 11 include the limitation that the cab includes a
second console spaced from the first console, wherein the second console includes a first
part immovable relative to a frame and a second part immovable relative to the frame and
spaced from the first part with no console part in between. Thus, even if
it would have been obvious to have provided the cab of Wilderman with a second console
located within the cab in view of the teachings of Brown, the examiner has not determined
that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to further provide the second console with a first part immovable relative to a
frame and a second part immovable relative to the frame and spaced from the first part
with no console part in between. Moreover, the examiner's position (set forth in the first
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007