Appeal No. 96-3024
Application 08/183,856
changing as the linkage arms exert a resisting force
upon the first end of the deck to enable the second end
of the deck to be lowered in a controlled manner; and
g. a drive motor for rotating one of the first pair of
sprockets and the second pair of sprockets thereby
rotating the chains to effect movement of the deck
relative to the support frame.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Stoll et al. (Stoll) 5,340,267 Aug. 23, 1994
Hardy (France) 2 556,399 Mar. 3, 1931
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stoll in view of Hardy. It is the examiner’s
position that:
Stoll et al. teach the usage of a rigid deck 26
having a first end and second end and [which is]
slidably movable from a travel position to an unloading
position and a pair of rigid link arms 40 with first
ends pivotally mounted in a fixed position adjacent a
first end of the deck and second ends mounted for
movement along a support frame 20. Hardy teaches the
usage of a pair of chains 5, first sprockets 6, second
sprockets 7, and a drive motor for moving a deck 9,
connected to the chains 5 by linkage arms 4, along a
support frame from first to second positions. To
modify the apparatus of Stoll et al. so as [to] connect
the second ends of the link arms to chains entrained
around sprockets driven by a motor would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
2A translation of the French patent is attached to this
Decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007