Appeal No. 2000-1971
Application No. 09/002,537
In rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-17 as being unpatentable
over Schiappati in view of Floe, the examiner has taken the
position that channels 50, 51 of Floe constitute
“strengthening ribs” (answer, page 2, third paragraph). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to provide the Schiappati hitch
housing with integral strengthening ribs in the vertical
plates, as taught by Floe, in order to strengthen the beam”
(answer, page 2, fourth paragraph).
We have several difficulties with the examiner’s position
in this regard. First, while we appreciate that Floe’s
channels 50, 51 may indeed strengthen tongue 42 to some
degree, we do not agree with the examiner’s implied position
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed these
channels as being “strengthening ribs,” i.e., provided for the
purpose of increasing the strength of the tongue. Floe’s
disclosure make clear that channels 50, 51 are provided for
the purpose of minimizing unwanted contact between the tongue
and the support structure of the vehicle-mounted hitch during
turning. In point of fact, Floe provides tongue 42 with a
closed lower oval portion and longitudinal ridges (not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007