Appeal No. 2003-0928 Page 9
Application No. 09/692,431
The obviousness rejection based on Law and Murray
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent claims 3 and 51 read as follows:
3. The trailer hitch alignment device of Claim 2, further comprising: a series
of spacing indicia along the upper shaft of the upper telescoping mast, said
spacing indicia being equally spaced apart along the outer surface of the shaft;
and a terminating indica at the top-most end of the said telescoping mast.
5. The trailer hitch alignment device of Claim 4, further comprising: a series
of spacing indicia along the upper shaft of the second upper telescoping mast,
said spacing indicia being equally spaced apart along the outer surface of the
shaft; and a terminating indica at the top-most end of the said second
telescoping mast.
In the answer (p. 4), the examiner set forth his rationale as to why claims 3 and 5
were unpatentable over Law. Specifically, the examiner (1) ascertained that Law did
not disclose the claimed spacing indicia; (2) found that "Murray shows indicia 23/24;"
and (3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to include spacing indicia, as shown in Murray, along
the shaft of Law's telescoping masts.
1 There is no proper antecendent basis for "the upper shaft" as recited in claims 3 and 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007