Appeal No. 95-3114
Application 08/051,800
ordinary skill would adopt would be simply a matter of design
choice, depending on which considerations were considered to be
more important, and we therefore conclude that it would have been
obvious to make the Riehle adapter 4 long enough to project the
engagement member 5 above the vehicle contour in view of Morsch's
and Rauthmann's disclosure of such adapters.
With regard to claims 2, 7, 12, 17 and 22, we note that legs
12 of Riehle's device 4 surround portion 7 of the vehicle, and
the sealing strip on the door appears to bear against the device.
On the other hand, we do not find, nor does the examiner point
out, where the combination of Riehle and either Morsch or
Rauthmann would suggest the additional limitations recited in
claims 4, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 26.
This rejection will therefore be sustained as to claims 1,
2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21 and 22, but not as to claims 4, 10,
15, 20, 25 and 26.
Dutschka '718 in view of Morsch or Rauthmann
Dutschka '718 discloses a device 19 for attaching a load
carrier to a vehicle, the device having a hook which engages a
pivoted bar 39 on the carrier, and a lower end which is spot
welded to the vehicle at 21 (page 4, line 27). The bar 39 is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007