Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
reference. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
Instead, the inquiry should be into the concepts fairly
contained in the applied references to determine whether
those concepts would have suggested the modifications
called for by the appealed claims. See Bascom, 230 F. 2d
at 614, 109 USPQ at 100. In the present case, Kishi
suggests the concept of locating a steering control in or
on the platform for the self-evident purpose of
conveniently allowing a worker to steer the vehicle from
the platform (see, for example, column 6, lines 55-60 of
the Kishi specification). Accordingly, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 4 based on Giladi in view of Cepparo and
Kishi.
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 8 based on
Giladi in view of Cepparo and Kishi. With regard to this
rejection, appellant argues on page 20 of the main brief
that “the Giladi device requires rotary motion” whereas
claim 8 “recites two platforms operated in opposed linear
fashion to retain vehicle stability . . .” The only other
argument traversing this rejection of claim 8 is that
“[t]he final rejection has not explained how the Cepparo,
Martin and Kishi references modify the Giladi basic
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007