Appeal No. 2004-1938
Application No. 09/887,741
"at" to -- and -- in line 3 of claim 9 would appear to overcome
this rejection.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 4, 5,
6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schurz,
we agree with appellant's position as set forth on pages 4-8 of
the brief that the hydraulic actuator (71) of Schurz pointed to
by the examiner does not and cannot perform the function set
forth in appellant's claims 1 and 5 of exerting a force between
the elongated towing/connecting member and the front end of the
trailer for pivotally moving the trailer in a horizontal plane to
an angular position out of alignment in respect to the towing
vehicle whereby access to the trailer is gained at each end
without obstruction by the elongate towing/connecting member and
the vehicle, while, as noted in claim 1, the elongated towing
member "remains substantially stationary" and the towing vehicle
remains connected to the bed of the trailer via the
towing/connecting member.
While the hydraulic actuator (71) of Schurz is located
between the elongated towing member or tongue (12) and the front
end of the trailer, Schurz notes that such actuator only moves
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007