Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 12
Application No. 09/272,115
We thus shall sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 as being unpatentable over
Walker.
With regard to claim 3, appellants correctly point out that the structure in Walker
which responds to the “lifter” recited in claim 3 does not include “at least one hydraulic
cylinder mounted inside the base section” as also called for in claim 3. Even if the
hydraulic boom hoist cylinders 34 are deemed to be part of the claimed “lifter,” they are
certainly not mounted inside the base section (boom butt 30). As the examiner has not
addressed this limitation specifically and we find no suggestion in Walker to so mount
the cylinders 34, Walker is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
the subject matter of claim 3. We thus shall not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as
being unpatentable over Walker.
As for claim 4, appellants argue that it is the hoist line drum 48, and not hydraulic
cylinders 34, which lift the component parts. We do not agree. The boom hoist
cylinders 34, by lifting and lowering the boom butt 30, also contribute, in conjunction
with the hoist line drum 48 and hoist line 46, to lifting and lowering the component parts.
Thus, appellants’ argument does not persuade us of any error on the part of the
examiner in determining that the subject matter of claim 4 is unpatentable over Walker.
We shall thus sustain the rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Walker.
The appellants’ arguments with respect to the examiner’s rejections based on
Batson, Becker, Newell and Morrow, namely, that the structure in each of these
references which responds to the “lifter” in appellants’ claim 5 is not “self-contained” in
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007