Appeal No. 98-1291
Application No. 08/586,524
means be mounted at locations adjacent the two ends of the
second frame member. The examiner finds these additional
structural elements to be taught by Chereda. However, be that
as it may, Chereda fails to alleviate the deficiencies in the
primary reference, even when considering it in the light of
the Section 103 rejection, and therefore the references fail
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of claim 6, and the rejection is not
sustainable.
Independent claim 12 has been rejected on the same basis.
Claim 12 requires, inter alia, that the location of the ramps
so relate to a horizontal axis established by the wheel means
as to cause the vertical pivot point of the implement swing
tongue, when the implement is loaded on the trailer, to be “in
substantial vertical alignment” with this horizontal axis.
The examiner recognizes that this clearly is not the case in
Koch (see Figure 1), but takes the position that it would have
been obvious to relocate it to improve the load distribution.
This is pure conjecture. No evidence has been provided and no
support is found in either reference. It is significant that
Koch discloses a single trailer axle that is off center, in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007