Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 11
Application No. 09/272,115
sustain the rejection of claim 5 as being anticipated by Walker. As appellants have
elected not to argue the patentability of claims 6 and 9 apart from claim 5, these claims
fall with claim 5. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus,
we shall also sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 9 as being anticipated by Walker.
The examiner has also rejected claims 1-4, 7 and 8 as being unpatentable over
Walker. The examiner concedes that Walker does not specify that the boom sections
are also removed from transport trailers and then lowered to the ground for pre-
assembly to the boom butt 30, but contends that Walker’s broad teaching of using the
base section (boom butt 30) to lift other components from their transport trailers would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art using the boom butt 30, and
presumably the hoist line drum 48, hoist line 46, hoist line cylinders 34 and boom
pendants 42, to also lift the boom extension sections (boom top 28 and any boom
inserts 32) from their transport trailers and position them for connection to the boom
butt 30 (answer, page 6). Appellants do not challenge the examiner’s position and it
seems quite reasonable to us.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, appellants merely repeat their argument that
the hoist line drum 48 is not “self-contained” in and “bodily movable with” the base
section (boom butt 30), as called for in claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive with
respect to these claims for the same reasons discussed above with regard to claim 5.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007