Appeal No. 2003-0677 Page 11
Application No. 09/759,950
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Randall and claim 1, it is our opinion that
the only differences are (1) a tilt structure with a tilt actuator for pivoting the loading
platform from a horizontal to a vertical position and vice versa and (2) a releasable
locking means for locking the loading platform in its upper end position level with, and
directly to the loading bed, and also for releasably locking the loading platform in the
vertical position.
In our view, the teachings of the applied prior art2 would not have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified Randall's loading apparatus to arrive at the claimed subject matter. In
that regard, neither Randall's load supporting platform 34 or Mortenson's load
supporting platform 28 locks (i.e. secures from movement) the load supporting platform
in its upper end position level with, and directly to the loading bed as claimed since
each load supporting platform in its upper end position level with the loading bed is free
2 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007