Appeal No. 95-3114
Application 08/051,800
We agree that diminishing the structural integrity of the
vehicle, as by forming holes for the reception of bolts, rivets,
etc., would not constitute a modification of the vehicle “only
... to the extent that the device is anchored thereto,” as
claimed. However, we do not agree that this language would
exclude devices that are attached to the vehicle by welding or
gluing. Such means of attachment would not diminish the
vehicle's structural integrity, nor would it mar the vehicle's
appearance any more than would be done by the attachment of any
anchorage device, including appellant's.
Accordingly, we conclude that the device 19 of Dutschka
'718, being spot welded to the vehicle, has an anchorage portion
which anchors the device “such that the vehicle need only be
modified to the extent that the device is anchored thereto,” as
claimed. We further conclude that, for the reasons discussed
above, it would have been obvious in view of Morsch or Rauthmann
to make the Dutschka '718 device 19 of such length as to extend
its engagement member outside the contour of the vehicle.
This rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 21 will be
sustained. However, it will not be sustained as to claims 2, 4,
7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25 and 26, each of which recites
limitations which would not have been obvious from the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007