Appeal No. 2002-0312 Page 11
Application No. 08/953,922
merit in that there is no mention in Griswold that the plow shown on the front of the
disclosed “earth working vehicle” (see title) is a snow plow. Griswold teaches operating
a vehicle and the earth working implements carried on the vehicle by means of a
wireless remote control, rather than from inside the vehicle, in order to allow the vehicle
and its earth working implements to be used in dangerous areas, such as where
explosives or toxic materials exist, or in situations where damage could be done to the
vehicle and an operator positioned therein by falling debris or vehicle turnover (column
1, lines 7-32). Griswold describes the blade as “a transverse bulldozer blade” mounted
to the undercarriage of the vehicle in “known” manner, which can be “raised and
lowered” (column 3, line 19 et seq.). There is no evidence to establish that the blade is
removable from the vehicle or that it is capable of pivotable movement.
Griswold does not disclose a snow blade, and explicitly teaches that the
bulldozer blade that is disclosed is movable only up and down. Griswold also fails to
disclose a blade mounting carriage that is removably connected to the front of the
vehicle and upon which at least a part of the adjusting mechanism is attached, both of
which are required by claim 1, and there is no evidence presented to overcome these
deficiencies. Consideration of Cummins fails to solve the problems with Griswold. We
therefore also will not sustain this rejection of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007