Appeal No. 2003-1653
Application No. 09/828,102
structure does meet the claim limitation requiring the ramp,
support arm and frame to be configured and arranged such that the
frame and trailer hitch rest upon the vehicle hitch prior to
pivoting of the ramp and support arm from the support position to
the rest position, “at least indirectly through the hitch guide
10” (final rejection, page 6). As persuasively argued by the
appellant, this finding rests on an unreasonable interpretation
of the claim language at issue.
In view of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 19 and 25, and
dependent claims 20 through 24 and 26 through 31, as being
unpatentable over Schrum.
With regard to independent claim 32, the examiner
acknowledges that Schrum does not meet the claim limitations
requiring the ramp and support arm to be configured and arranged
such that pivoting of the support arm from a rest position to a
support position causes the support arm to contact the ramp and
move the ramp from a rest position to a support position. To
overcome this deficiency, the examiner cites Allard.
Allard discloses a tractor-trailer hitching mechanism
comprising a ramp over which an eye-forming loop 13 on the
trailer rides to a position above a hook fitting 15 on the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007