Appeal No. 2006-1220
Application No. 10/457,960
utilizing a hydraulic cylinder connected to a movable crosshead, as this would
simply be an art recognized alternate equivalent means of raising a [sic: or]
lowering a platform relative to a wheeled base frame” (final rejection, p. 3). The
appellant argues, on pages 5 and 6 of the brief, that the dramatic differences
between Ramer and Callahan in their use, function and operation make it unlikely
that one skilled in the art of free standing lifts, as in Ramer, would look to the
teachings of Callahan and that, at best, the combined teachings of the references
show that it might have been obvious for a skilled artisan to try to combine the
features of these devices. Additionally, the appellant argues that nothing in the
applied prior art would have provided motivation for a skilled artisan to substitute
a shaft and winch arrangement as taught by Callahan in place of the type of
hydraulic system disclosed by Ramer and that Callahan teaches placing shafts and
winches along three sides of the lift frame which would further restrict the Ramer
device to being loaded from only one side, making the combination less desirable
and thus non-obvious to a skilled artisan (brief, p. 6).
A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art
teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching,
motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than
expressly stated in the references. The test for an implicit showing is what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007