Appeal No. 2002-0251
Application No. 09/220,170
rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed July
30, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants'
specification and claims, the applied prior art references, and
the respective viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner's rejections of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
In considering the examiner's rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Teich, we note that claim 7 is
directed to a combination of a three-point hitch including a pair
of lower draft links having a cylindrical hitch bar (18)
extending therebetween near rear ends of the draft links and a
ballast attachment (24) secured to said links, wherein the
ballast attachment has a width less than the distance between the
rear ends of the draft links and is formed as a substantially
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007