Appeal No. 2004-0191 Page 8
Application No. 09/072,241
between points “0" and “7". It is true that during the initial stages of operation of the
Hoar system pivot arm 28 moves horizontally backward through points “1", “2" and “3",
and the proximal ends of arms 30 describe a backward arc during that same period.
Nevertheless, owing to the construction and relationship of the various components, the
distal ends of the arms, which comprise the “load support,” do not move backward at
any time during the vertical lifting operation. Thus, we find the appellant’s argument not
to be persuasive.
It is our conclusion that the subject matter recited in claim 21 reads on the
method by which the system disclosed in Hoar operates, and therefore this reference
anticipates the claim and the Section 102 rejection will be sustained.
Claim 22 adds to claim 21 further steps comprising locating the first and fourth
arm pivots to form a first diagonal line segment and the second and third arm pivots to
form a second diagonal line segment. This is present in Hoar, where the first arm pivot
(27) and the fourth arm pivot (37), and the second arm pivot (at the upper end of arm
28) and the third arm pivot (32) are so arranged. It is clear from comparing the
positions of the arm pivots in Figures 1 and 2 that they move in the manner required by
claim 22 “throughout” the step of “moving” the load. This rejection of claim 22 is
sustained.
Claim 26 adds to claim 21 the step of applying a force “primarily vertically”
between the mobile base and the load support. The appellant’s argument that this is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007