Appeal No. 98-0455
Application 08/467,247
these large mechanical struc- tures are
mounted thereon. Even though it is well
known to provide a mechanical assist device
(e.g., hydraulic devices) to assist in
moving large structures, no disclosure is
present which would enable one of ordinary
skill to utilize such a mechanical assist
device in the rotation of the frame in this
particular instance as claimed.
Rather than reiterate the full details of the con-
flicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 18, mailed July 8, 1997) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’
brief (Paper No. 14, filed April 8, 1997) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and
claims, and to the respective positions articulated by appel-
lants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review we
have reached the determination which follows.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007