Appeal No. 2002-2272
Application 09/375,712
roller yoke 52 rotatably mounted at the distal end of the boom,
adjustable means 32, 36, 40' for fixing the rotational plane of
the roller yoke relative to the boom, a cylinder-piston unit 14
for rotating the roller yoke in this plane, and a pavement roller
58 on the roller yoke.
In rejecting claim 16 as being obvious over Cronin (see
pages 12 through 14 in the answer), the examiner finds that
Cronin’s steps of providing roller 58, providing roller yoke 52,
providing the vertically oriented piston-cylinder unit shown in
Figure 2, and actuating this piston-cylinder unit respectively
meet the foregoing method steps in the claim. While the
actuation of the vertically oriented piston-cylinder unit
seemingly would vertically move the roller 58, there is nothing
in Cronin to support the examiner’s determination that such
actuation would also pivotally move the arm or roller yoke 52 as
required by claim 16.
Thus, the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness relative to
the subject matter recited in claim 16, based as it is on a
faulty factual finding as to Cronin’s disclosure, is unsound.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 16 as being obvious over Cronin.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007