Appeal No. 1999-0285 Page 11
Application No. 08/697,573
In response to this argument of the appellants, the
examiner stated (answer, pp. 4-5) that the argument is
not well-taken since the basket (with the person therein)
of O'Brien et al. could not clear the fuselage of the
airplane without movement during lifting and alternately,
the basket (with the person therein) could not be lowered
without moving the basket away [from] the fuselage.
We agree with the appellants' argument 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. In 3
that regard, the examiner's position that the lift of O'Brien
would be moved with a person in the basket (i.e., platform 94)
is based on speculation unsupported by the disclosure of
O'Brien.
Since all the limitations of claim 25, and claims 26 to
30, 32 and 33 dependent thereon, are not met from O'Brien as
3We reach no opinion on whether this limitation would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made from the teachings of Houle (see
especially, column 3, lines 43-48). While Houle was applied
by the examiner in the rejection of claim 29, it was not
applied by the examiner as suggesting this limitation of claim
25.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007