Appeal No. 2003-0771
Application No. 09/031,666
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
above-noted rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
At the outset, appellants contend (brief, pages 5-7) that
Ronan and Thorton-Trump are nonanalogous art. In an obviousness
determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the question of whether
an applied reference constitutes analogous art is normally
considered to be a threshold issue. However, in the view we take
in this appeal, even if we assume that Ronan and Thorton-Trump
are analogous, the obviousness rejection made by the examiner in
the final rejection and maintained in the answer is not well
founded.
Krynytzky, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to a
fire-fighting vehicle comprising a double arm boom 20 carried by
a turntable 22 on the vehicle. Each arm of the boom is capable
of being individually elevated by hydraulic lifts, and the
outboard end of the top arm of the boom carries water nozzles
24 for delivering water to the fire. Boom 20 includes pairs of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007