Appeal No. 2002-2227 Page 5
Application No. 09/522,545
Hamilton at column 24, line 68 et seq. as disclosing this phase of operation, which
allegedly teaches the “retract” feature of the claim (Answer, pages 6 and 7).
In response to this new theory, the appellants filed a Reply Brief in which they
disputed in great detail the examiner’s interpretation of the noted passages of Hamilton.
They also submitted an affidavit from Mark Eichhorn,3 with an accompanying DVD
demonstration disk (Paper No. 16), as evidence in support of the appellants’ position
that the Hamilton controller does not operate in the manner professed by the examiner
in either mode of operation. While the examiner initially refused to enter the affidavit
and the DVD disk (Paper No. 17), upon the appellants’ filing of a petition on the matter,
it was “considered and entered” (Paper No. 19). The essence of the appellants’
arguments is that (1) analysis of Figures 9 and 13 of Hamilton lead to the conclusion
that the initial leveling in the Hamilton system is accomplished solely by extending the
legs, and not by both extending and retracting the legs, and (2) the “inverse logic”
system of Hamilton which is used in re-leveling the vehicle would not have taught one
of ordinary skill in the art to retract the legs. Mr. Eichhorn’s affidavit and DVD are in
support of the conclusions expressed in the arguments.
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants’ explanations of both of the
Hamilton operating modes. We arrive at this conclusion with regard to initial leveling for
3We note that Mr. Eichhorn states on page 2 of his affidavit that he is a “named inventor” on the
present application, however, this is not reflected in the record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007