Appeal No. 98-1530
Application No. 08/492,590
rather than in two mutually perpendicular directions that are
fixed relative to the longitudinal axis of the aerial
apparatus, as is required by the claims. As far as Habern is
concerned, the examiner has not pointed out with specificity,
and we are at a loss to determine on our own, where the
reference teaches using a dual axis load sensing device. In
our view, Habern also utilizes a single axis system, and
therefore does not cure the above-mentioned shortcoming in
Schenck. However, even considering, arguendo, that the
examiner’s interpretation of Habern is correct, we fail to
perceive any incentive in either reference which would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Schenck’s
single axis system with a dual axis one, for Schenck solves
the problem of determining the load on the wire regardless of
the angle of the apparatus (translation, page 4; Figures 2A, B
and C), and there appears to be no reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would consider that a dual axis system would
be an improvement. Equally important is the fact that to make
this change essentially would require that the entire Schenck
invention be discarded, which in our view would operate as a
disincentive to the proposed modification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007