Appeal No. 98-1530
Application No. 08/492,590
Second, in the Schenck system the winch line passes over
a first sheave (8) that is fixed upon the end of the aerial
structure, and then over a second sheave (13) from which the
load is suspended. Basic to the Schenck invention is that the
second sheave be movable (on springs 12) with respect to the
rest of the structure, including the other sheave, so that it
can press upon a load sensor (11) with a force related to the
weight on the winch line. The output of the load sensor is
utilized to calculate the real load on the apparatus, either
directly, as is the case in Figure 1, or indirectly, as is the
case in Figures 2A, B and C. Because the second sheave is
movable with respect to the first sheave, the winch line does
not maintain “a known orientation relative to said
longitudinal axis” of the aerial apparatus, as is required by
the appellants’ claims.
For the reasons explained above, the rejection of Schenck
in view of Habern fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of independent
claims 1, 8 and 15, and we will not sustain this rejection of
these claims or, it follows, of claims 3-7, 9, 10, 14 and 16-
18, which depend therefrom.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007