Appeal No. 2002-0251
Application No. 09/220,170
Moreover, with particular regard to claim 9, we find the
examiner's reliance on Nau, as set forth in the answer (pages 5
and 7), to be entirely misplaced. Like appellants (brief, page
4), we note that item (11) in Nau (Fig. 5) and the portion of the
surface thereof which begins at (18) and inclines rearwardly and
upwardly therefrom is not a lower surface of a forwardly opening
hitch bar receptacle as defined in claim 9 on appeal, but rather
forms a part of the nose (2) of the plate-like ballast weight (1)
and an upper surface of the receptacle that receives the support
or carrier element (3). Thus, while it may have been obvious to
modify the hook projection (32) of Teich following teachings
relating to Nau's item (11), we see no basis for modifying the
lower surface of the forwardly opening receptacle or recess (28)
in the ballast weight (24) of Teich in the manner urged by the
examiner. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 9 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007