Appeal No. 1997-3449 Page 13
Application No. 08/424,806
digital data processing systems such as the input to . . .
[an] appropriate control unit . . . .” Col. 8, ll. 56-61.
The reference, however, stops no action upon identification of
any condition. No other reference was applied by the examiner
to show any case where an over-tilt condition resulted in
stopping an action.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the claimed limitations of measuring the side-to-side tilt of
a vehicle having an elevating dump bin and automatically
stopping elevating of the bin when a predetermined vehicle
tilt is reached. The examiner impermissibly relies on the
appellant’s teachings or suggestions; he has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007