Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 4
The second issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the
examiner erred in finding that Esau discloses 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 third issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a deck and a means for
selectively permitting and prohibiting movement of the deck from the use
position to the storage/servicing position in one or less than four steps, as
recited in claims 13 and 14.
The fourth issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a deck and
means for selectively permitting and prohibiting movement of the deck
between a storage/servicing position and a use position in which the mower
deck which automatically locks the mower deck in the storage/servicing
position as recited in claim 17.
The fifth issue is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Esau discloses a mower having a height
adjustment arm which automatically alters in length as the deck is moved
between the use position and the storage/servicing position as recited in
claim 23.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant invented a mower that comprises a vehicle and a mower
deck attached to the vehicle. The mower deck is selectively movable
between a generally horizontal use position and a generally vertical
storage/servicing position. There is a means which includes a mower height
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013