Appeal No. 98-1291
Application No. 08/586,524
which stability during loading is provided by a support and
during transport by the attachment of the trailer directly to
the towing vehicle by a drawbar (column 4, lines 8-15). In
the appellants’ system, in contrast, two axles are provided
and the loaded trailer is pulled by means of the swing arm of
the loaded implement. We fail to perceive any teaching,
suggestion or incentive which would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to make such a modification except for the
hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellants’
disclosure. This, of course, cannot be the basis for a
finding of obviousness. See, for example, In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Finally, as was the case in claim 1, claim 12 requires that
the ramps move from the loading positions to the transport
positions “in response to implement weight moving up said
ramps . . . with the ramps depositing said implement at said
respective transport locations . . . when the ramps reach
their respective transport positions.” This is not disclosed
or taught by Koch or Chereda.
The combined teachings of these two references fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007