Appeal No. 2002-0312 Page 9
Application No. 08/953,922
(2)
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 also stand rejected as unpatentable over Simi in view of
Cummins. The examiner’s position is that Simi discloses it was known in the snow plow
art to remotely control a snow plow blade but lacks a teaching of doing so by means of
a wireless remote control which, however, would have been obvious in view of the
showing of Cummins (Answer, page 6). The examiner’s rationale for combining the
references in this manner is the same as it was in the rejection discussed above,
namely, remote controls are well known and “could also be used to help in the mounting
and dismounting of the snow blade to the vehicle” (Answer, page 6), and are “art-
recognized equivalent[s]” of wired systems (Answer, page 7).
Simi discloses exactly the type of snow plow blade control system over which the
appellants believe their invention to be an improvement, for Simi provides a control box
inside the vehicle cab which is hard-wired to the snow plow operating mechanism.
Cummins teaches utilizing a wireless remote system to control a vehicle, which in
one embodiment is equipped with a plow blade. However, as we stated above, there is
no evidence to support a conclusion that this blade is a snow blade or is movable at all,
much less movable in the manner specified in the appellants’ claim 1. Moreover, the
examiner’s conclusion that remote controls are equivalents of hard-wired controls is
unsupported by evidence, and his opinion that such controls could be used to facilitate
plow installation and removal must be considered to be based upon hindsight in that no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007