Appeal No. 1998-1878 Page 13
Application No. 08/543,734
al. for the purpose of having one-handed control of
the direction of travel.
In order to establish the prima facie obviousness of a
claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985,
180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974). Like appellants (brief, pages
5-7), we are unable to find, and the examiner has not
specifically identified, where in the references it is either
taught or suggested that (1) a larger resistive force is
associated with a push or pull motion for operating the lift
and lower motion of a lift truck mast and a smaller resistive
force is associated with a right or left rolling motion for
controlling the direction of travel and speed of the lift
truck as recited in claim 6 or (2) an ergonomical reaction
force acting in the “X” direction is substantially lighter
than an ergonomical reaction force acting in the “Y” direction
as recited in claim 16.
We point out that Habiger, which discloses a single
control lever for steering and speed control in a crawler
tractor vehicle, contains no discussion whatsoever of a
control for operating the lift and lower motion of a lift
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007