Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
4. Claims 2-5, 8-10 and 16 as unpatentable over Giladi
in view of Martin and Kishi;
5. Claim 7 as unpatentable over Giladi in view of
Cepparo and Harrison; and
6. Claim 7 as unpatentable over Giladi in view of
Martin and Harrison.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments in his main brief.5 As a result, we conclude that
the rejection of claims 1 and 15 based on the combined
teachings of Giladi and Cepparo is sustainable.
The Giladi patent discloses a wheeled vehicle having a
pair of platforms (10) which are postioned on opposites
sides of the vehicle. The platforms are adjustable to
elevated positions as shown in the drawings for allowing
workmen on the platforms to pick fruit as in an orchard.
The platforms are mounted on the vehicle by pivotable
linkage assemblies (32, 36) that provide for the vertical
and horizontal adjustment of the platforms independently of
each other to maneuver the platforms to desired locations.
5 The examiner has refused entry of appellant’s reply brief
and the accompanying evidence of non-obviousness.
Appellant’s petition to overturn the examiner’s refusal was
denied (see Paper No. 21 mailed May 18, 2000).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007