Appeal No. 2004-1088 Page 7
Application No. 09/805,202
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1,
and claims 2 to 5, 10, 12 and 56 to 82 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection based on Gilmore and McWilliams
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 10, 12, 56 to 59 and 61 to 82
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore in view of McWilliams.
In the rejection of claim 1 based on Gilmore and McWilliams (answer, pp. 7-8),
the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent teachings of Gilmore; (2) ascertained that
Gilmore does not show a user interface section which is horizontally adjustable with
respect to the extendable section and cantilevered from the extendable section;
(3) determined that McWilliams shows a user interface section cantilevered from the
extendable section which is horizontally and vertically adjustable; and (4) concluded
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
apparatus of Gilmore by adding the adjustable user interface of McWilliams.
The examiner has not correctly set forth the teachings of McWilliams.
McWilliams does not show a user interface section cantilevered from the extendable
section. McWilliams' user interface section (i.e., loader head 58) is mounted in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007