Appeal No. 1998-1878 Page 14
Application No. 08/543,734
truck mast. Further, we perceive no suggestion in Habiger
that a reaction force acting in the left-right direction, as
illustrated in Habiger’s Figure 3, is substantially different
(larger or smaller) than a reaction force acting in the
forward-reverse direction seen in Figure 1.
Schultz’s control handle does have the “X” and “Y”
directions of movement defined in claims 6 and 16. Further,
while Schultz is concerned with minimizing operator fatigue,
he reduces fatigue by locating the control handle at what he
considers to be a more convenient and comfortable position,
see col. 2, lines 63-68 and col. 1, lines 29-35. In addition,
the handle control “is designed and located so that the
functions to be controlled are sense oriented” (col. 1, lines
22-24). However, we perceive no suggestion in Schultz that
the reactive force of the push-pull motion of the control
handle is quantitatively different from the reactive force of
the rotating motion of the grip handle for controlling
direction and speed of the truck.
Since all the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case for the obviousness of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007