Appeal No. 2006-1129 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/775653
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pyle. We initially note that to support a
rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the
claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner's findings in regard to the rejection can be found on page 3 of the
answer.
We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with the appellant that Pyle
does not disclose a trailer hitch which further comprises a kingpin or a sliding
mechanism slidingly captured within the trailer frame, as required by claim 1. Pyle
discloses a kingpin attached to the towing vehicle (col. 1, line 58). In addition, Pyle
discloses a sliding mechanism 16 that is not captured within the trailer frame (see Fig. 6
and 7). Instead, Pyle's sliding mechanism remains within the tractor or truck pulling
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007