Appeal No. 2006-1220
Application No. 10/457,960
patents, and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the following determinations.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claim 1. In our opinion, claim
1 reads on Ramer’s portable lift as follows. Ramer discloses a portable lift for
lifting a load with respect to a supporting surface 64, the lift comprising a base 12
having I-beams 14, 16, 18, 20 which engage the supporting surface (col. 4, ll. 37-
41) and form an opening therewithin; a plurality of vertical guide posts 22 attached
to and extending upward from the base 12; and a load platform 24 for supporting
an object being lifted and in a lowered state being received within the opening
(Fig. 2), the platform 24 comprising a motor arrangement (motor 116), a plurality
of reels (pulleys 80 and sheaves 86, 92, 94, 96), a transmission (safety clutch 118)
connecting the motor 116 to the reels via pump 112 and cylinder 102, and a
plurality of flexible ties (cables 82) each looped or otherwise secured relative to an
anchor member 84 fixed at the upper ends of the guide members 22 and wound
onto the plurality of reels, wherein winding and unwinding of the cables 82 onto
and off of the plurality of reels respectively raises and lowers the platform 24 with
respect to the supporting surface 64.
As discussed above, Ramer discloses all of the limitations of appellant’s
claim 1 and thus anticipates the claimed subject matter. A disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy,
727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007