Appeal No. 1997-2162
Application 08/280,430
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967).
After a review of the teachings in Gary and Nordskog, we
fail to find a gate and a ramp located at the same end of the
car where a mechanical link lowers the ramp when the gate is
opened as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The ramp as taught
by Gary moves by the movement of the jack mechanism under the
platform providing a blocking gate by itself in closed
position. The ramp and the door in Nordskog’s lift are not
mechanically linked and operate independently. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Gary and Nordskog and the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gary, Nordskog, and Schauder.
In regard to the rejection of the independent claim 7,
Appellants on page 15 of the brief argue that the control
circuit of Shah is powered by AC power from the transformer 70
whereas the DC power is supplied to the microprocessor to
actuate the relays. Appellants further point to Grove’s
teaching in col. 4, lines 66 through 68 stating that the
control circuit is “designed for normal operation . . . on
115-volts alternating current.” The inverter 66 provides a DC
output to actuate the emergency circuits only in case of power
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007