Appeal No. 98-1530
Application No. 08/492,590
even if such is the case, the result would be the claimed
structure. In this regard, Habern’s “guide” is actually one
part of a mechanism (the other part is a pawl) for preventing
the chain from running out in the direction of the load and
for measuring the load in a sensor that is installed therein.
It is not clear how the examiner would interface the elements
of the two references, or what suggestion the examiner finds
for doing so. However, if this mechanism of Habern were used
for its intended purpose in conjunction with the Schenck
crane, it would have to be located downstream rather than
upstream of the sheaves, and therefore could not function in
the manner required by the claims.
Couching the rejection in terms of Habern in view of
Schenck, rather than the opposite, does not alter our view
that a prima facie case of obviousness is not established with
regard to the subject matter of the three independent claims,
and this rejection of claims 1, 3-10 and 14-18 is not
sustained.
Claim 2 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Habern
in view of Schenck and Rigney, the latter being cited for its
disclosure of a digital screen for displaying the load
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007