Appeal No. 2001-0304 Page 5
Application No. 09/168,358
concedes is missing in Auramo. Nilsson provides a pressure sensor 60 for measuring the
lifting force exerted by the lifting means 22 of a load-handling device, the measured lifting
force being used by a control unit 50 to control a directional valve 72 to adjust a hydraulic
cylinder 66 proportionally to the pressure P detected by the sensor 60 to cause the stand
L
24 to be tilted back during the gripping and lifting sequence in which the paper roll or rolls
leave the supportive surface in order to counteract the “curtsy” which unavoidably occurs as
a result of the load (the paper roll or rolls) once it leaves the supporting surface (see pages
6-7). As noted by Nilsson (page 7), control of the tilt function is also reversible so as to
enable a roll to be deposited flatly on the supportive surface without danger of the roll
edges being damaged.
From our perspective, the mere sensing of the magnitude of the lifting pressure or
lifting force being applied to the load in Nilsson’s device is insufficient by itself to
determine whether or not a load is being lowered by the lifting mechanism, as called for in
claim 20. Rather, a particular lift pressure or force magnitude as detected in Nilsson’s
device may indicate any of a lifting, lowering or static condition of the lifting mechanism.
The examiner concedes on page 4 of the answer that Nilsson does not discriminate
between lifting and lowering but perceives in claim 20 no limitation as to discrimination
between lifting and lowering. Although we do not share appellants’ view (reply brief, page
3, lines 15-23) that claim 20 requires that the automatic tilt adjustment be limited to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007