Appeal No. 2006-1220
Application No. 10/457,960
with the problem addressed by the appellant, Ramer and Callahan of hoisting a lift
platform to raise a load from a support surface.
We have fully considered the appellant’s argument with regard to the
incorporation of a double shaft transmission arrangement as taught by Callahan on
the Ramer lift and we further appreciate that one of the objects of Ramer’s
invention is to facilitate movement of hand or power trucks onto and off of the
platform as well as to permit manipulation of such trucks on the platform such as
turning 90 degrees for movement relative to one side thereof (col. 2, l. 10-14). We
observe, however, that all of the features of the secondary reference need not be
bodily incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)) and that the artisan is not compelled to blindly
follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889,
221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). One skilled in the art, with these objects
in mind, would have known to position portions of the motor and shaft
arrangement as necessary to preserve the requisite clearance to accommodate the
desired manipulations.
For all of the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2-6, 9-16, 18 and 19 which appellant has not argued separately apart
from claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)), as
being unpatentable over Ramer in view of Callahan.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007