Appeal No. 2001-0861 Page 8
Application No. 08/741,964
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of Mecca and Harte, considered
in the manner set forth above, establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard
to the subject matter of claim 2, and we will sustain this rejection.
Claims 18 and 19, which depend from claim 17, also stand rejected on the basis
of Mecca and Harte. The appellants have not argued the separate patentability of
claims 18 and 19, but have merely relied upon the arguments raised with regard to
claim 2 (Brief, page 6). This being the case, and having sustained this rejection of
claims 2 and 17, we also shall sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 19.
In the second theory of rejection set forth by the examiner against claims 2, 18
and 19, the lower hooks 27 of Mecca are considered to be the snow plow ring
connectors recited in claim 2, and they are directly attached to the tow rings disclosed
by Harte. The appellants have not provided any arguments specifically directed to the
examiner’s position that the hooks are considered to be rings, beyond the broad
challenge of combining Mecca and Harte, which we discussed above. Thus, the
examiner’s second theory of rejection with regard to claims 2, 18 and 19 stands
uncontroverted, and we will sustain it.
Claim 4 stands rejected on the basis of Mecca in view of Harte and Whittaker.
This claim adds to claim 2 the requirement that the snow plow ring connector be of
resilient material and be attached to the vehicle ring connector by squeezing it and
passing it through the vehicle ring connector. The examiner cited Whittaker for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007