Ex parte JORDAN et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2001-0304                                                               Page 2                
              Application No. 09/168,358                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellants’ invention relates to improvements in fluid power load-clamping                    
              systems (specification, page 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the                  
              appendix to the appellants’ brief.                                                                       


                     The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the appealed             
              claims:                                                                                                  
              Petersson et al. (Petersson)              WO 79/00330                 Jun. 14, 1979                      
                     (published International Application)                                                             
              Nilsson                                   2,312,417                   Oct. 29, 1997                      
                     (published UK patent application)                                                                 
                                                                                 1                                     
              AURAMO, “Mast Centralization System For Lift Trucks” brochure  (Auramo)                                  

                     The following rejections are before us for review.                                                
              (1)    Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                      
              Auramo in view of Nilsson.                                                                               
              (2)    Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                      
              Nilsson in view of Petersson.                                                                            
              (3)    Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                      
              Petersson in view of Auramo.                                                                             

                     Appellants, who filed this document with Paper No. 2, indicate in the Form PTO-1449 submitted1                                                                                                
              therewith that the publication date of this reference is at least as early as 1996.                      







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007