Appeal No. 2000-1514 Page 4
Application No. 09/038,450
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 19 reads as follows:
A combination of a wheel chocking device mounted at
a loading dock, said combination comprising:
a dock face;
a driveway;
a base frame positioned on and above said driveway
and spaced from said dock face;
a chock positioned for longitudinal movement over
said base frame, wherein said chock is movable from a
lowered inoperative position to a raised operative
position; and
a drive mechanism drivingly connected to said chock,
and at least partially positioned within said base frame
such that wheels of a vehicle positioned at said loading
dock will be positioned over at least a portion of said
drive mechanism.
Warner discloses an automatic wheel chocking apparatus
for restraining movement of a vehicle away from a loading dock
during a loading operation. The apparatus comprises an
elongated trough formed in the driveway that extends outwardly
from the front face of the loading dock and a wheel chock is
mounted in the trough for movement between a storage position,
where the wheel chock is located beneath the level of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007