Appeal No. 95-3114
Application 08/051,800
fixed in position on the vehicle after the load carrier is
removed, but it is not apparent why it is not. The patent
discloses that the Fig. 4 embodiment may have projections on the
legs 12, hooking onto plate 7, “so that the connection is even
stronger” (id.). This connection would appear to be at least as
permanent as appellant's catch-like portion 13, which grips
projection 9 on the vehicle.
Riehle does not disclose that the engagement member 5 is
“permanently disposed outside the contour of the vehicle,” as
claimed, but the examiner takes the position that it would have
been obvious to so construct the Riehle adapter 4 in view of
Morsch or Rauthmann, both of which show adapters which extend
upward beyond the roof line of the vehicle.
It seems evident that in designing an adapter of this type,
one of ordinary skill would face the choice of whether to make
the adapter relatively short (as with the adapter of Riehle), so
that it would not project beyond the vehicle contour and thus
would preserve the vehicle's aesthetic appearance, or whether to
extend the adapter above the vehicle's contour (as with the
Morsch and Rauthmann adapters), thereby making it easier to
attach the load carrier, and allowing attachment of the carrier
without opening the door. Which of these alternatives one of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007