Appeal No. 2001-0861 Page 9
Application No. 08/741,964
allegedly teaching that wire hook connectors are the equivalent to the resilient
connectors because they are “inherently resilient” (Answer, page 7). We do not agree
that this is the case. The common applicable definition of “resilient” is “capable of
recovering size and shape after deformation,”2 and there is nothing in Whittaker that
would suggest that the rings on the end of the shock cords are “resilient,” in that there is
no explicit teaching to that effect, nor is it necessary that they be deformed in any
manner in order to function in the manner desired. Moreover, we do not agree that
suggestion exists for modifying the snowplow ring connectors of either of the other
references to make them resilient, much less resilient to the extent necessary to allow
them to be squeezed to pass them through the vehicle ring connector. Unlike the
examiner, we consider the squeezing requirement to be a structural limitation.
The applied references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the subject matter of claim 4, and we will not sustain this rejection.
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Brown in view of
Mecca and Whittaker. Claim 6 requires that the snow plow ring connectors and the
vehicle ring connectors be made of a resilient material. As we stated above, we do not
agree with the examiner that Whittaker would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art that the attachment rings of Mecca be made of resilient material. We reach the
2See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 985.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007