Appeal No. 2001-0304 Page 3
Application No. 09/168,358
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection
and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 9 and 11) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rejection (1)
Auramo discloses a mast centralization system for a lift truck having a mast and a
paper roll clamp movable along the mast. The mast centralization system is designed to
reduce the risk of costly edge damage by aligning the mast automatically at the correct
angle to thus ensure that the paper rolls are lowered in “the true vertical position” (page 2).
In rejecting claim 20 as being unpatentable over Auramo in view of Nilsson, the examiner
relies upon the VM-2U embodiment of Auramo’s mast centralization system, which
includes two mast-position sensors installed on the bottom of the lift truck mast D. In this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007