Appeal No. 2004-0191 Page 9
Application No. 09/072,241
not taught by Hoar because Hoar uses a horizontally oriented hydraulic cylinder that
does not directly act on the load support (Brief, page 10) is not persuasive for two
reasons. First, the claim doesn’t require a hydraulic cylinder, much less that it act
directly on the load support. Second, Hoar’s mechanism does apply a primarily vertical
force between the base and the load support, in that the force generated by hydraulic
cylinder 35, albeit not acting in the vertical direction, nevertheless causes arm pivot 37
and the load support by the application of a primarily vertical force through its
connection with link 33. The rejection of claim 26 is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 18, 19 and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 21, 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hoar is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007