Appeal No. 1999-0711 Page 8
Application No. 08/876,869
Matsumoto apparatus so as to offset the charging hopper (the front portion of the truck body
including the chutes) and to provide the bucket path with an arcuate upper portion in view of
the teachings of Horning as it would facilitate maneuvering of the vehicle and emptying of the
bucket (Answer, page 3).
The appellants argue (Brief, pages 13-14) that "the basic combination of [Matsumoto
and Horning] cannot properly be applied as suggested to render claim 48 and the remaining
claims depending from it obvious." For the reasons which follow, we agree with this
statement.
Matsumoto discloses an arrangement wherein the overall width of the truck is reduced
during travel on a highway by providing an inwardly and downwardly slanted channel portion
(82) which enables the bin (84) to be tucked under the truck body. Horning, on the other
hand, discloses a different arrangement for reducing the overall width of the truck not only
during highway travel but during operation at a collection site, wherein the front section of the
truck body is narrower than the rear section to form a recess in which the bucket assembly is
accommodated throughout at least most of its travel. The bucket assembly travels from its
lowermost position along a substantially vertical path up to the top of the truck body and then
veers inwardly to assume a dumping position over the top of the truck body. The guide tracks
do not include "lower segments that are outwardly directed" so as to define "an initially
outward extending path" as required by claim 48.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007