Appeal No. 1999-0285 Page 10
Application No. 08/697,573
under 35 U.S.C. § 103). The examiner determined (answer, p.
3) that
O'Brien et al disclose a manually operable lift used with
aircraft (column 1, line 24) and having plural wheels 26,
adjustable limit switches (and column 2, lines 67, 68
etc.) chassis 20, basket 94, etc., paired lift arms 81
with stabilizing arms 83, energy source 138, energy
converter 136, 122, etc., rear support 24, etc., bearing
assemblies 109, etc., lifting means 85 and common means
141-143.
The examiner then concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious
to have conventionally shifted the switch to allow the
platform to attain a preset limit, if desired." Thereafter,
the examiner determined that the subject matter recited in
dependent claims 26, 28, 29 and 30 would have been obvious
from the applied prior art.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 7) that the step of
"moving the lift with the person in the basket into a position
aligned with the structure's opening" as set forth in claim 25
is not taught, suggested or made obvious from O'Brien.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007