Appeal No. 2001-0304 Page 4
Application No. 09/168,358
embodiment, mast centralization is performed in relation to the ground, in contrast to the
VM-2, VM-2C, VM-1U and VM-1UC embodiments wherein the mast centralization is
performed in relation to the truck chassis. Auramo teaches that the VM-2U and VM-2UC
models are capable of positioning the mast vertically “in relation to the ground, even when
the lift truck itself is inclined” (page 4), and that these models “also compensate for the
change in the truck position caused by soft tires from heavy loads” (page 4). Although
Auramo uses the terminology “true vertical,” it is apparent from the teachings of Auramo as
a whole that the mast inclination sensors and centralization system are ground-referenced
(in the VM-2U and VM-2UC models) or truck chassis-referenced (in the other models) and
are not “gravity-referenced” to determine whether the load is tilted “relative to gravity” as
alleged by the examiner on page 3 of the final rejection and on page 3 of the answer. In
this regard, we also note that the tilt sensor 78 of Nilsson senses the position of a point on
the lift stand 24 in relation to the truck for conversion to a measurement of the angle to
which the stand 24 is tilted in relation to the truck (page 4). As such, Nilsson also fails to
disclose a “gravity-referenced” sensor as called for in appellants’ claim 20 and thus does
not cure the above-noted deficiency of Auramo.
Moreover, for the reasons discussed infra, we agree with appellants that Nilsson
lacks a teaching of “a load-lowering sensor operable to determine whether or not said load
is being lowered by said lifting mechanism,” a limitation of claim 20 which the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007