Appeal No. 98-1530
Application No. 08/492,590
information. Be that as it may, Rigney does not alleviate the
deficiencies in the basic combination of references which are
discussed above, and we will not sustain this rejection.
The third rejection of the three independent claims is on
the basis of Schenck in view of Kovacs. The examiner’s
position is that Kovacs shows a dual axis load pin, and that
it would have been obvious to install this in the Schenck
crane system, thus rendering the claimed structure obvious.
We do not agree. Initially, we point out that Schenck fails
to disclose or teach the required winch line guide means, and
this shortcoming is not overcome by adding the teachings of
Kovacs. Also, we find no explicit teaching in Kovacs that the
disclosed transducers are of the dual axis type, nor does that
appear to be inherent in their operation. From our
perspective, although the Kovacs transducers utilize several
strain indicators, it appears to us that the force is sensed
in a single direction, and not along two mutually
perpendicular directions, as is set forth in the appellants’
claims. In any event, as stated above, we are of the view
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to replace the single axis load sensing system with
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007