Appeal No. 2001-0861 Page 5
Application No. 08/741,964
implication being that the claimed invention would avoid damage, is not persuasive. It
also would appear that Mecca’s shear pins would break if an undesired pulling force
were applied by the plow striking an object while moving forward, or hanging up on an
object while moving rearward; in both cases the snow blade would disattach from the
vehicle.
We agree with the appellant that there is no explicit statement in Mecca that the
straps would disengage from the fender if the shear pins were to fracture. However, the
straps are attached to the fenders by means of hooks, are connected to eyes on the
shear pins, and are tensioned after installation. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
inevitable result of the severing of the shear pins would be disengagement from the
hubs in which they are installed, whereupon the straps would fall free or at least
slacken and the hooks would lose their grasp on the fender and drop out of the fender
wells.
The Section 102 rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
It is our view that the method steps recited in claim 17 also are anticipated by
Mecca, on the basis of the reasoning set forth above, and the Section 102 rejection of
claim 17 likewise is sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007