Appeal No. 2000-1971
Application No. 09/002,537
have resulted in the claimed invention. Certainly there is no
indication in Sheldon or Kelley that trailer hitch devices of
the type disclosed by Schiappati are in need of reinforcement.
Further, as noted above in our discussion of rejection (a),
there is no indication in Schiappati that it might be
inadequate for its intended purpose. Indeed, in that
eccentric 20 and stem 42 of peg 40 of Schiappati span the
sides of the bracket adjacent their lower edges, the
ordinarily skilled artisan may very well view Schiappati’s
hitch housing as being akin to the typical internally braced
hitch design referred to by appellant in the “Background”
section of the specification in the paragraph spanning pages 2
and 3.
In brief, there is no suggestion in Schiappati, or either
of the secondary references, for modifying Schiappati in the
manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing rejections of the appealed claims as being
unpatentable over Schiappati in view of either Sheldon or
Kelley.
Remand to the Examiner
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007