Appeal No. 2003-1653
Application No. 09/828,102
The rejection before us rests on the examiner’s
determination (see pages 3 and 4 in the final rejection and pages
5 through 7 in the answer) that the appellant’s specification
lacks written descriptive support for the following limitations
in the appealed claims:
a) “said frame and trailer hitch lose contact with said ramp
prior to pivoting of said ramp and said support arm from said
support position to said rest position” (claim 19);
b) “said frame and trailer hitch rest upon a vehicle hitch
prior to pivoting of said ramp and said support arm from said
support position to said rest position” (claim 25);
c) “said frame rests upon a ball component of the vehicle
hitch to which said ramp and said support arm are attached prior
to pivoting of said ramp and said support arm from said support
position to said rest position” (claim 30);
d) “the trailer hitch rests upon a ball component of the
vehicle hitch to which said ramp and said support arm are
attached prior to pivoting of said ramp and said support arm from
said support position to said rest position” (claim 31); and
e) “pivoting of said support arm from a rest position to a
support position causes said support arm to contact said ramp and
move said ramp from a rest position to a support position” (claim
32).
Implicitly conceding that these limitations lack literal
support in the specification, the appellant counters that they
are inherently depicted in the configuration and proportions of
the guide assembly shown in Figures 3 through 5 (see pages 5 and
6 in the brief). A careful review of these drawings, however,
and the underlying specification, shows that there is nothing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007