Appeal No. 1997-2162
Application 08/280,430
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 18 and 22 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 1 through 3, 7, 8,
10 through 16, 20, and 21. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103, Appellants argue on pages 9 and 10 of the brief that
neither Gary nor Nordskog teaches a “dock plate” mechanically
linked to a “gate” where the dock plate is lowered as the gate
is opened. Appellants further argue that the Nordskog’s ramp
136 not only is a separate staircase ramp and unsuitable for
use by wheelchairs, but also requires to be put in place
manually by someone else. Additionally, Appellants argue that
Gary’s ramps on both ends of the car are hinged and rotate
about either a horizontal axis forming a ramp or about a
vertical side of the car forming a gate. Appellants conclude
that Gary does not show a dock plate and a gate at the same
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007