Appeal No. 2000-1971
Application No. 09/002,537
numbered) to improve the strength of the tongue (col. 5, lines
49-50). Second, there is no indication in Schiappati that U-
shaped bracket element 1 needs any additional strengthening.
Moreover, in that eccentric 20 and stem 42 of peg 40 of
Schiappati span the sides of the bracket adjacent their lower
edges, it is questionable whether bracket element 1 requires
any additional strengthening. Third, it is debatable whether
channels such as those shown by Floe at elements 50, 51 could
be provided in Schiappati without compromising the ability of
the bracket element to accommodate the locking mechanism in
the form of eccentric 20 and peg 40. Fourth, in that
Schiappati’s bracket element is affixed to the motor vehicle
body (i.e., the thing doing the pulling) rather than the
trailer (i.e., the thing being pulled), it is debatable
whether one of ordinary skill in art would have considered
applying Floe’s channel features 50, 51 to Schiappati’s
bracket element.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-17 as being
unpatentable over Schiappati in view of Floe.
Rejections (b) and (c)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007