Appeal No. 2001-0304 Page 7
Application No. 09/168,358
Nilsson and Petersson is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
subject matter of claim 20. It thus follows that we shall not sustain rejection (2).
Rejection (3)
Petersson discloses a truck equipped with a clamping device (Figures 2 and 3)
vertically adjustable on a lifting frame 12 and a sensor for detecting the inclination of the
clamping device and registering the angle of inclination on a pointer device so that the
driver can adjust the clamping device to the desired inclination. In one embodiment (page
3, last paragraph), Petersson teaches adjusting the clamping device to the desired
inclination by adjusting the angle of the clamping device in relation to the lifting frame.
Further, Petersson contemplates registering the angle of inclination of the clamping device
independently of the possible inclination of the truck (i.e., relative to gravity) by means of a
plummet device to which the indicator is related (page 3, lines 7-10). Petersson does not
provide details as to where the plummet-type sensor is mounted. Where the adjustment of
the angle of the clamping device is achieved by angular adjustment of the clamping device
relative to the frame, as disclosed by Petersson in the last paragraph on page 3, rather
than by angular adjustment of the frame and the clamping device, one skilled in the art
would have appreciated that the inclination sensor should be mounted, at least in part, to
the clamping device so as to give a direct indication of the inclination of the element to be
adjusted. Appellants’ own argument on page 10 of the brief that “the logical solution is to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007