Appeal No. 2001-0314
Application No. 09/102,677
to a stationary object, and (3) including a separate top cover
in view of Chiang to prevent damage to the top of the vehicle.
Presumably, the Battle container as so modified would meet all
of the limitations in independent claims 5, 8 and 15.
The mere fact that prior art can be modified in a manner
proposed by an examiner would not have made the modification
obvious absent some suggestion in the prior art of the
desirability of the modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
901, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present
case, the above noted teachings of Tall, Lohse and Chiang have
little meaningful relevance to the vehicle flood protection
container disclosed by Battle and would not have suggested the
particular modifications proposed by the examiner.
Specifically, Tall’s disclosure of a snowmobile cowling cover
would not have suggested making the end and side panels of
Battle’s container of a vertical height less than the height of
the vehicle to be protected in order to lower costs, Lohse’s
cover lifting loops, intended for temporary use to deploy the
cover, would not have suggested adding fore and aft tether
means to Battle’s container in order to secure the container to
a stationary object, and Chiang’s modular vehicle cover, with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007