Appeal No. 2004-0191 Page 7
Application No. 09/072,241
conclusion, the appellant points to the diagram of operation shown in Figure 2 of Hoar,
wherein the corresponding positions of certain of the components are shown in dashed
lines.
We do not agree with the appellant’s position, based upon the following
reasoning. Claim 21 merely recites a “load support,” which in our view is broad enough
to read on the distal portion of Hoar’s arms 30 at numeral 41, which denotes the center
of gravity of the load. This “load support” is “engaging” the first pivotal arm 28, as is
earlier specified in claim 21, through the proximal portion of arms 30. As recited in the
penultimate step of claim 21, the appellant’s method recites the step of “moving [the
first and second pivot arms] . . . to vertically raise said load from said ground-level
position to said raised unloading position.” Thus, the “moving” step commences when
the load begins to be vertically raised from the ground-level position and ends when the
load is in the raised unloading position. The final step of claim 21 states that the “load
support” is horizontally shifted in the direction corresponding to the direction of
horizontal displacement from the mobile base “throughout” the “moving step,” that is,
from the time the load begins to be lifted to the time it no longer is being lifted.
From our perspective, the diagram of operation of the Hoar mechanism actually
supports the examiner’s position that these steps read on the Hoar method of
operation. In particular, as shown in Figure 2, the path of the “load support” as
indicated by 41 moves in an arc having a constant horizontal displacement during lifting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007