Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
thus is not germane to the patentability of claim 15. See
Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd. 781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ
90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580,
152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967) and In re Lemin, 326 F.2d
437, 440, 140 USPQ 273, 276 (CCPA 1964). With regard to
the arguments commencing with the second full paragraph on
page 15 of the main brief, the issue is what is claimed in
claims 1 and 15, not what is described in appellant’s
summary of the invention and not what is described in the
descriptive portion of appellant’s specification. In any
case, Giladi and Cepparo teach the concept of locating the
platforms on opposite sides of the vehicle for the self-
evident advantage of allowing workmen to work on trees on
opposite sides of the vehicle. Furthermore, claims 1 and
15 are not limited to the specific concept of “simultaneous
pruning” on opposite sides of the vehicle as argued on page
15 of the main brief.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
combined teachings of Giladi and Cepparo would have
suggested the subject matter of claims 1 and 15 to one of
ordinary skill in the art to warrant a conclusion of
obviousness under the test set forth in Keller, 642 F.2d at
425, 208 USPQ at 881. Accordingly, we will sustain the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007