Appeal No. 2001-0861 Page 4
Application No. 08/741,964
claim are found in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
We agree with the examiner that claims 1 and 17 are anticipated by Mecca.
Using the language of claim 1 as a guide, Mecca discloses a snow plow that can be
attached to a vehicle. The snow plow comprises a snow plow blade and a releasable
attachment means for releasably attaching the snow blade to the vehicle, whereby the
plow blade can disattach from the vehicle when an undesired pulling force is
encountered in order to avoid damage to the vehicle. The releasable attachment
means disclosed by Mecca comprises hooks 27, straps 25, and shear pins 22. It would
appear that when an undesired pulling force is applied to the shear pins through
support arms 14 and 15, the shearing of the pins will cause fender straps 25, which are
attached to the shear pins, to loosen and drop free of their engagement with the fender.
This would result in the snow blade becoming disattached from the vehicle. As far as
avoiding damage to the vehicle is concerned, we note that such is an explicit objective
of Mecca (column 4, lines 44 and 45). Further in this regard, it appears to us that
disattachment of the Mecca blade would place it in the same relationship with the
vehicle as disattachment of the appellants’ blade, that is, continued forward movement
of the vehicle would cause it to strike and perhaps override the blade, while rearward
movement of the vehicle will distance it from the blade. Therefore, the appellants’
argument that the Mecca system would not avoid damage to the vehicle, with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007