Appeal No. 2002-0937 Page 3
Application No. 09/301,985
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, it is our opinion that the examiner’s rejection is not sustainable.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim before us on appeal, reads as follows:
1. A platform for use in loading and/or unloading one or
more cargo containing objects such as containers or pallets
onto or from an adjacent surface, including:
a deck having one end disposable adjacent the
surface, an opposite end and longitudinally extending sides,
and
an array of roller assemblies rotatably mounted on the
deck in position to support the objects, including
first and second groups of laterally spaced, generally
parallel roller assemblies each along a side of the deck and
selectively rotatable in opposite directions about longitudinal
axes in order to move an object longitudinally onto or off of
the deck,
third and fourth groups of roller assemblies extending
longitudinally along the inboard side of each of the first and
second groups, and selectively rotatable in opposite
directions about lateral axes, whereby, those of the third and
fourth sets may be rotated with one another in the same
direction or in the opposite direction, and
a fifth group of roller assemblies extending
longitudinally between the third and fourth groups and
having a pair of longitudinally spaced portions each portion
including laterally spaced and long extending sets with each
set being selectively rotatable in the same or different
directions as the other, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007