Appeal No. 98-1291
Application No. 08/586,524
ramps be movable to a raised transport position “wherein said
first end portion extends approximately horizontally above and
at least in close proximity to said first frame member.” That
is not the case with the Koch trailer, in which the first end
portion of the ramp is clearly at about a 45 degree upward
inclination when in the transport position (Figure 5, broken
lines), and is in close proximity with the second frame member
rather than the first. Finally, claim 1 requires that the
ramps be “adapted for being moved . . . by the weight of an
implement being loaded . . . as they travel from the second
end portions to the first end portions of said ramps,” whereas
in the Koch system it is the force of the implement wheels
contacting the end plate 42 well after they leave the ramps
that causes the ramps to be lifted to the transport position.
Since all of the structure recited in claim 1 is not
disclosed or taught by Koch, the Section 102 rejection of
claim 1 cannot be sustained. It follows that the anticipatory
rejection of dependent claim 5 also must fall.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007