Appeal No. 2000-1488 Page 11
Application No. 08/826,832
suggested providing Eid's tractor with spaces/enclosures such
as those disclosed by Brocklebank (i.e., spaces 22a and 22b),
it is our opinion that those spaces/enclosures would not have
been located on one or both sides of Eid's weight box to
define a counterweight receiving aperture/space as set forth
in either claim 1 or claim 2, but would have been located in
the superstructure of the tractor itself as clearly taught in
Brocklebank.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claims 1 and 2, and claims 5
and 10 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Eid in view of Brocklebank is reversed.
Claims 6 to 8
We have also reviewed the references to Washburn and
Yancey additionally applied in the rejection of dependent
claims 6 to 8 but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiencies of Eid and Brocklebank discussed above.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 6
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007