Appeal No. 2004-0191 Page 3
Application No. 09/072,241
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to mobile loaders of the short wheelbase
type in which a load support is lifted and extended forward of the loader. According to
the appellant, the load supports cannot be extended very far forward without
unbalancing the loader, and the prior art solutions of providing counterweights on the
opposite end of the loader or extending the wheelbase have disadvantages. The
appellant’s invention is directed to solving this problem by providing a loader lift
mechanism and method of vertically raising a load which improves upon the prior art
machines.
The Rejection Under The First Paragraph Of Section 112
The examiner has taken the position that the original specification does not
support horizontally shifting the load responsive to and throughout the moving step in
claim 21 or throughout the movements in claims 22-25, a limitation which the examiner
states was added by amendment (Papers No. 15 and 17). According to the examiner,
the original specification discloses only forward movement of the load support, whereas
the claimed subject matter in issue requires that the load support move forward
throughout the moving step (Answer, page 4). The appellant argues that the operation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007