Appeal No. 95-3114 Application 08/051,800 fixed in position on the vehicle after the load carrier is removed, but it is not apparent why it is not. The patent discloses that the Fig. 4 embodiment may have projections on the legs 12, hooking onto plate 7, “so that the connection is even stronger” (id.). This connection would appear to be at least as permanent as appellant's catch-like portion 13, which grips projection 9 on the vehicle. Riehle does not disclose that the engagement member 5 is “permanently disposed outside the contour of the vehicle,” as claimed, but the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to so construct the Riehle adapter 4 in view of Morsch or Rauthmann, both of which show adapters which extend upward beyond the roof line of the vehicle. It seems evident that in designing an adapter of this type, one of ordinary skill would face the choice of whether to make the adapter relatively short (as with the adapter of Riehle), so that it would not project beyond the vehicle contour and thus would preserve the vehicle's aesthetic appearance, or whether to extend the adapter above the vehicle's contour (as with the Morsch and Rauthmann adapters), thereby making it easier to attach the load carrier, and allowing attachment of the carrier without opening the door. Which of these alternatives one of 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007