Appeal No. 2002-2227 Page 4
Application No. 09/522,545
is not taught by Hamilton, and therefore combining the two references would not result
in the invention recited in claim 24.
Claim 24 recites an apparatus for automatically leveling a vehicle comprising a
plurality of extendable and retractable legs mounted to the vehicle, a sensor mounted to
the vehicle to sense pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to a reference level plane and
to produce an orientation signal representing the pitch and roll, and a controller coupled
to the legs and the sensor. The dispositive issue in this case is whether in the Hamilton
vehicle leveling system the operation of the controller is such that it
monitors the orientation signal received from the sensor and in response
to that signal the controller causes at least one of the legs to both extend
to move the vehicle upwardly and retract to move the vehicle downwardly
relative to the ground surface, until the orientation of the vehicle reaches
the reference level plane within a tolerance,
as is required by claim 24. In this regard, in response to the final rejection the
appellants argued that the language of claim 24 requires the inventive controller to
cause the legs to both extend and retract in the course of seeking the point at which the
vehicle is leveled, whereas the Hamilton controller causes the legs to extend only to
achieve that result (Brief, pages 12-14). In the Answer, the examiner added to the
statements made in the final rejection the further assertion that Hamilton also discloses
an “inverse logic” system for re-leveling the leveled vehicle, in which the controller is
programmed to both extend and retract the legs. The examiner makes reference to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007