Appeal No. 2002-2272
Application 09/375,712
the claim, neither of the hydraulic cylinders 18 is “operably
connecting” the ram (tubes 23, 24) to the arm (pivot arm beam 40)
under any reasonable interpretation of this term. As the
Rossburger reference does not disclose any other structure
meeting this limitation, it is not anticipatory with respect to
the subject matter recited in the claim.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 3, as
being anticipated by Rossburger.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4 through 8
Since Rossburger, considered alone or in combination with
Cronin, Foertsch or Rogers, would not have rendered obvious a
shoulder compacting apparatus responding to the second linear
actuator limitation in parent claim 1, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 4 as
being obvious over Rossburger, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 5 as being obvious over Rossburger
in view of Cronin, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 6 as being obvious over Rossburger in view of
Foertsch or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 7 and 8 as being obvious over Rossburger in view
of Rogers.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007