Appeal No. 2000-0913
Application No. 09/067,123
evidence that
it would have been obvious to provide an integral air bag in
one of the restraint arms of Niebuhr to gain the advantages
thereof is reasonable on its face and has not been argued with
any reasonable degree of specificity. In this regard,
appellants’ very general argument (brief, page 20) that there
is no teaching or suggestion, outside appellants’ disclosure,
to combine the teachings of Niebuhr and Cameron is not
persuasive that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 7.
Rejections (d) and (g)
Independent claim 9 calls for a restraint device wherein
the restraint device is connected to a parking brake of the
industrial truck such that “the parking brake is released as a
function of the pivoting position of the bar.”
Independent claim 20 calls for a restraint device wherein
the restraint device is connected to a parking brake of the
industrial truck such that “the parking brake is disengaged
when the restraint bar is in the closed position and the
parking brake is engaged when the restraint bar is in the open
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007