Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 13
Application No. 09/272,115
and “bodily movable with” the base section as called for in claim 5, also stem from an
unduly narrow interpretation of the terms “self-contained” and “bodily movable with” as
discussed above and are as unpersuasive with regard to these rejections as they were
with regard to the rejections based on Carter and Walker. In particular, Batson’s
hoisting unit C, though housed within the upper deck A, is mounted and fully contained
on the crane (loader), thus being “self-contained,” and is capable of being moved as a
unit with (i.e., “bodily movable with”) the boom B when the loader is rotated about its
base 13 or when the loader is driven along the ground. Similarly, whether Becker’s
lifting cylinder 21 or the main lifting winch 44 is considered the “lifter” as recited in claim
5, both of these elements are mounted on and fully contained on the crane, thus
meeting the “self-contained” limitation, and are capable of being moved as a unit with
(i.e., “bodily movable with”) the boom 26 when the superstructure 5 is rotated about the
vertical axis 6 and when the crane is driven along the ground. Newell’s hydraulic lift
cylinders 44, which the examiner calls the “lifter,” and the winch 46 and cable 49, which
also assist in lifting component parts, such as crawlers 76a, 76b, are both mounted on
and fully contained on the crane, thus meeting the “self-contained” limitation, and are
capable of being moved as a unit with (i.e., “bodily movable with”) the main boom
section 40a (base section) when the cab 30 is rotated about its chassis 22 and when
the crane is driven using its crawlers 76a, 76b. Finally, whether Morrow’s hydraulic
cylinders 32 or drums 42, 47 are considered the “lifter” as recited in claim 5, all of these
elements are mounted on and fully contained on the crane, thus meeting the “self-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007