Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 3
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 17-19, 23-30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Esau.
The Appellant contends that Esau does not disclose a mower having a
deck wherein movement of the deck from the use position toward the
storage/servicing position is permitted when the height adjustment lever is in
a collapsed position as required by claim 2.
Appellant also contends that Esau does not disclose a mower in which
the movement of the deck from a use position toward the storage/servicing
position is prevented when the mowing height adjustment lever is in an
upright position as recited in claim 3 and as similarly recited in claims 5, 26,
and 32
The Appellant further contends that Esau does not disclose a mower
having a deck and (1) means for selectively permitting and prohibiting
movement of the deck from the use position to the storage/servicing position
in one step or in four steps, as recited in claims 13 and 14 respectively, (2)
means for automatically locking the deck in the storage/servicing position,
as recited in claim 17, and (3) wherein the length of the wheel adjustment
arm is automatically altered as the deck is moved between the use and
storage/servicing position as recited in claim 23.
ISSUES
The first issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a deck wherein
movement of the deck from the use position toward the storage/servicing
position is permitted when the mowing height adjustment lever is in a
collapsed position as required by claim 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013