Appeal No. 2002-0312 Page 5
Application No. 08/953,922
specifying the type of remote control utilized to control the snow plow blade, but that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a wireless remote
control of the kind claimed, in view of the teachings of Cummins. The examiner opines
that wireless remote controls “are common and well known,” provide “flexibility,” and
“could also be used to help in the mounting and dismounting of the snow blade to the
vehicle” (Answer, page 4). The examiner further states that the Cummins remote
control “is an equivalent structure known in the blade control art,” and “was an art-
recognized equivalent at the time the invention was made” (Answer, page 5). We do
not agree with the examiner’s rationale or conclusion, on the basis of the following
reasoning.
The Hydra-scoop disclosure consists of a photograph of a four-section snow
plow installed on the front of a truck, and some seventy words of description. The text
states that “the plow features remote control,” but does not provide any details thereof,
in particular, whether it is a wireless remote control, as is required by claim 1. The
presumption arises, therefore, that the “remote control” is a cab-mounted hard-wired
system which the appellants describe as the prior art in the opening paragraphs of their
specification. Further with regard to the requirements of claim 1, Hydra-scoop fails to
explicitly disclose or teach that the plow has an adjusting mechanism which “raises,
lowers, and pivots” the blade in response to the remote control signals, or that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007