Appeal No. 2003-0928 Page 7
Application No. 09/692,431
The appellant's argument fails to persuade us that the subject matter of claim 1
is novel since none of the limitations argued for patentability appears in claim 1.
Argued limitation (1) appears in claim 3. Argued limitation (2) appears in claim 5.
Argued limitation (3) appears in claim 6. Argued limitation (4) appears in claim 8.
Argued limitation (5) appears in claim 9. Accordingly, the appellant has not specifically
set forth any argument as to why the subject matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by Law.
Moreover, it is our view that claim 1 is anticipated by Law since claim 1 "reads on" Law
as follows: A trailer hitch alignment device (Law's trailer hitch alignment guide
apparatus 10) comprising:
a hitch alignment guide (Law's second guide assembly 12) comprised of a
first vertically disposed, elongated alignment mast (Law's second support base lower
end portion 32, second support boss upper end portion 34 and telescoping first legs
36, 37, and 38) affixed to a hitch base (Law's second support lug 30 and U-shaped
clamp 25); and
a ball target mast (Law's first guide assembly 11) comprised of a second
vertically disposed, elongated alignment mast (Law's first support base lower end
portion 18, first support base upper end portion 20 and telescoping legs 22, 23 and 24)
affixed to a ball base (Law's first support lug 16 and split cylindrical clamp ring 13).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007