Appeal No. 2002-1392
Application No. 09/390,996
the claimed rotation about an axis or movement in a direction
which is parallel to the axis. As explained by appellants
(Brief, pages 18-23), Lipps fails to disclose either rotation
about or movement in a direction parallel to any of the axes set
forth in claim 1. The examiner asserts (Answer, page 7) that
Lipps' additional switch to detect downward pitching of the rear
portion 52 of the platform 26 and rubber bushings 72 in
combination with spring 76 suggest that the platform can move
parallel to a vertical axis. We disagree.
As clearly explained by appellants (Brief, page 19), the
downward pitching of the rear portion in Lipps represents a
tilting movement rather than a movement in a vertical direction.
Thus, the switch detects such a tilting movement. Furthermore,
although the rubber bushings may compress slightly, we would have
to resort to speculation as to whether the resultant movement of
the support surface would be sufficient to satisfy the claimed
vertical movement. Similarly, we would have to resort to
speculation as to whether the above mentioned switch would detect
the magnitude of the vertical movement that would correspond to
the compression of the bushings, as required by the last
paragraph of claim 1. Additionally, Lipps does not disclose any
other members that would detect such movement. Therefore, even
if the support surface could be considered to move in a direction
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007