Appeal No. 2001-0861 Page 2
Application No. 08/741,964
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a snow plow for a vehicle. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 6, which
appear in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Brown 2,867,921 Jan. 13, 1959
Harte et al. (Harte) 4,833,799 May 30, 1989
Mecca 5,509,219 Apr. 23, 1996
Whittaker 5,673,464 Oct. 7, 1997
Claims 1 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Mecca.
Claims 2, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mecca in view of Harte.
Claims 2, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mecca in view of Harte.1
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mecca in view of Harte and Whittaker.
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Brown in view of Mecca and Whittaker.
1This second rejection of claims 2, 18 and 19 as being unpatentable over Mecca in view of Harte
is based upon a different interpretation of Mecca.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007