Appeal No. 2000-2108
Application No. 09/075,943
examiner points to the sidewalls (32) of Carroll as being
responsive to the claimed structure. In our opinion,
appellant is correct in concluding that the combination of
Carroll and Lazar urged by the examiner would not result in a
guide plate with an upper slanted portion having lateral sides
being formed into winged guide portions. From our perspective
a combination of the upper and lower ramp portions of the
guide plate in Lazar with the guide plate in Carroll would
have resulted in the lower ramped portion extending to the
upper edge of the sidewalls (32) in Carroll and the upper
slanted portion of lesser angle extending from the upper edge
of the sidewalls (32) to the rearward edge (28) of the guide
plate, thereby allowing the planar upper portion of the guide
plate of Carroll to fit into the catches or notches (42) of
support leg (24) without interference. Thus, we conclude that
the combination of Carroll and Lazar posited by the examiner
would not have rendered obvious the vehicle hitch positioning
apparatus as set forth in appellant's claim 2 on appeal, and
for that reason we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007