Appeal No. 1998-2083
Application No. 08/471,584
trailer much less of a loader assembly including a pair of
horizontal arms overlying a cab or an area occupiable by a cab
and with each arm having a first end coupled to the semi-
trailer proximate the forward end of the semi-trailer and a
second end extending forwardly past the cab or area.
Essentially, it is the examiner’s position that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie
obvious to modify Holtkamp by substituting a semi-trailer for
Holtkamp’s fixed cab and body arrangement while retaining
Holtkamp’s attachment of the loader assembly to the forward
end of the body without evidence or prior art in support
thereof. In the absence of evidence or compelling
argument in support thereof, however, we are not persuaded
that this would have been the case.3
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of independent claims 17 and 78 and
dependent claims 75, 76 and 79.
We have also reviewed the Smith reference applied along
3The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not
make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007