Appeal No. 2002-0937 Page 5
Application No. 09/301,985
roller assemblies (as claimed) depending upon the intended application of the platform”
appears to indicate that the examiner found that Ihara lacked at least a fifth group of
roller assemblies meeting the limitations of claim 1. Indeed, we have carefully reviewed
the teachings of Ihara and find no disclosure therein of “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” as called for in claim 1.
While the secondary references to McGrath and Leon, in our opinion, would
have broadly suggested modification of Ihara’s assembly to provide independent drives
for the rollers of Ihara’s rear elevator which permit rotation in the same or opposite
directions in order to enable rotation of containers thereon, we find no suggestion in
either of these references to modify Ihara’s roller arrangement so as to provide “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” as called for in claim 1. Further, the examiner’s
statement on page 3 of the answer that “it would have been obvious to have included
conventional grouped and fifth roller assemblies (as claimed)” is unavailing as to what
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007