Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 14
Application No. 09/272,115
contained” limitation, and are capable of being moved as a unit with (i.e., “bodily
movable with”) the base section (boom 24) when the upper works 13 is rotated about
the lower works 12 or when the crane is driven along the ground using traction
assemblies 15.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the rejections of claim 5 as being
anticipated by Batson, of claim 5, and claims 6 and 9 which appellants have not argued
separately from claim 5, as being anticipated by Becker, of claim 5, and claim 9 which
appellants have not separately argued apart from claim 5, as being anticipated by
Newell and of claim 5, and claims 6 and 9 which appellants have not separately argued
apart from claim 5, as being unpatentable over Morrow.
We shall not, however, sustain the rejection of claims 5-7 as being anticipated by
Andersson. Quite simply, we do not consider the tower crane of Andersson to be “a
mobile crane” or the carrying cradle, comprising counterweight 1 and frames 2-4, to be
“a handling boom including a base section” as called for in claim 5, and hence in claims
6 and 7 which depend from claim 5.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, in this decision we have:
(1) reversed the rejection of claims 1-9 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112;
(2) sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 5 as being anticipated by Carter;
(3) sustained the rejection of claims 5, 6 and 9 as being anticipated by Walker;
(4) sustained the rejection of claim 5 as being anticipated by Batson;
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007