Appeal No. 2006-1220
Application No. 10/457,960
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Moreover, as more fully
explained below, we find sufficient suggestion in the combined teachings of Ramer
and Callahan to modify Ramer in the manner proposed by the examiner so as to
arrive at the subject matter of claims 1-6, 9-16, 18 and 19.
Callahan “relates to cargo and material handlers” generally and, in
particular, to a transport for moving and loading an auxiliary fuel tank into an
aircraft (col. 1, ll. 6-8). Callahan’s lift mechanism utilizes two parallel shafts 51,
52, each shaft having two winches 31, 41 and 42, 43 thereon. Shafts 51 and 52
rotate in opposite directions and are driven through gear reduction boxes 54, 55 by
hand crank 57 and shaft 58, thereby operating the winches simultaneously (col. 3,
ll. 4-9). Each winch has a strap wound around it and is attached to the lift frame 20
via a baseplate 45. In order to raise the lift frame 20 to lift a load, such as a fuel
tank, into an aircraft, the straps are unwound from the winches and hooked onto the
attachment points within the aircraft located above each winch. The load is then
lifted into the aircraft by turning the handcrank. Callahan additionally teaches that
“[t]he winches can be motor driven if the weight of the transported article justifies
the expense” (col. 4, ll. 27-28).
The examiner’s position in rejecting independent claims 1 and 12 is that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to modify the apparatus of Ramer “by winding and
unwinding the flexible ties onto reels, as shown by Callahan et al, rather than
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007