Appeal No. 2000-0913
Application No. 09/067,123
clear that the terminology should be interpreted broadly and
should not be limited to a steering wheel or control knob for
controlling vehicle speed or direction, or operation of the
lifting device of the vehicle, as argued by appellants on page
8 of the brief. Since in the configuration of Niebuhr noted
above, operation of the truck would be prevented until the
arms are pivoted to the restraining position, and since
release of the arms requires actuation of the arm locking
means via the buttons 44, 46 carried by the arms, the arm
mounted buttons 44, 46 may be considered an “operational
control element” within the broad meaning thereof.
In light of the above, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 1 as being anticipated by Niebuhr. The anticipation
rejection of claim 3 will also be sustained, since this claim
has not been separately argued with any reasonable degree of
specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The anticipation rejection of
claim 5 likewise will be sustained because Niebuhr’s arms 20,
22 cooperate to hold the driver in the driver’s seat in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007