Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
Edelhoff and Tonsor, we also will not sustain the rejection of
these dependent claims.
Independent claim 15 also stands rejected on the basis of
Edelhoff and Tonsor. The language of this claim differs
significantly from that of claim 2, in that rather than
reciting the output as providing a fork position control
signal to “minimize an overall maximum height” that the
portable container achieves, as in claim 2, claim 15 states
that the fork position control signal output is to “control
the maximum height” that the portable container achieves. The
claim thus does not include the “minimize” height limitation
which is a major focus of the appellants’ arguments regarding
the patentability of their invention over the teachings of the
applied prior art. We observe that this phraseology is not
present in the specification or the original claims; it was
added by amendment in Paper No. 15. The appellants have not
pointed out how this language patentably defines over the
combined teachings of the two applied references which, from
our perspective, leaves the rejection of claim 15
uncontroverted on the record. Be that as it may, however, it
appears to us that the control system disclosed by Edelhoff
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007