Appeal No. 97-1143
Application 08/115,881
claim 1, but that Covert actually teaches away from such a
modification. Appellants call attention to the fact that
Covert discloses
a horse drawn fire truck having a base portion comprising
a rear carrying frame (A) and a front carrying frame (B).
The front carrying frame (B) carries the ladder sections
(C). Disposed adjacent to the rear of the base portion
is a first set of wheels (a ) and disposed adjacent to the1
front of the base portion is a second set of wheels(b ).1
Located approximately midway between the front and rear
of the base is a pivot bolt (a) and a retractable wheel
(I). After the horse brigade arrive at the fire, to
effectuate moving of the ladder, the wheel (I)is dropped
and frame (A) is uncoupled from the frame (B) and run
off. (Column 3, lines 88-94). (emphasis original)[main
brief, page 9].
As appellants see it, Covert teaches a fire truck in
which the frame is split into two sections in order to
establish a turning radius of approximately half the fire
truck length and, thus, would direct a person of ordinary
skill to modify Rice by providing a separable base in order to
shorten the turning radius
of Rice's stand. Appellants also argue that since the
midpoint of Covert's frame is located approximately at pivot
bolt (a), the examiner's finding that the wheels (b ) in1
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007