Ex Parte STRUCK et al - Page 11




              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