Appeal No. 2002-0312 Page 2
Application No. 08/953,922
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a remote controlled snowplow for a vehicle.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Cummins 3,761,040 Sep. 25, 1973
Griswold et al. (Griswold) 4,776,750 Oct. 11, 1988
Simi et al. (Simi) 4,999,935 Mar. 19, 1991
“HYDRA-SCOOP SNOW PLOW,” Farm Industry News, Vol. 23, No. 7, page 25,
July/August 1990 (Hydra-scoop)
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1-4 and 7-20 on the basis of Hydra-scoop and Cummins.
(2) Claims 1-4 and 7-20 on the basis of Simi and Cummins.
(3) Claims 1-4 and 7-20 on the basis of Griswold and Cummins.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 21) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 20) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 23) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007