Appeal No. 2001-0304 Page 6
Application No. 09/168,358
situations where dynamic disturbances are likely to be minimized, we do agree with
appellants that the claim language “operable to determine whether or not said load is
being lowered” is not reasonably susceptible to any interpretation other than to define a
sensor capable of discriminating between lowering and other conditions.
In light of the above, it is our opinion that the combined teachings of Auramo and
Nilsson are insufficient to suggest the subject matter of appellants’ claim 20. Therefore,
we shall not sustain rejection (1).
Rejection (2)
The examiner’s rejection of claim 20 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of
Petersson rests in part on the examiner’s finding that Nilsson discloses “a load-lowering
sensor operable to determine whether or not said load is being lowered by said lifting
mechanism” as recited in claim 20. The above-discussed lack of support in Nilsson for
this finding fatally taints the examiner's conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in claim 20 and Nilsson are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. As pointed out by appellants on page 8 of the brief, Petersson also fails to
disclose a load-lowering sensor operable to determine whether or not a load is being
lowered by the lifting mechanism. Accordingly, we conclude that the combination of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007