Appeal No. 2002-0331
Application No. 09/382,735
The obviousness rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 through 11 and
13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Keller in view of Adams and Fox.
Simply stated, we reach the conclusion that impermissible
hindsight would be required to effect the claimed locking
mechanism of claim 9 on the basis of the collective teachings of
Keller, Adams, and Fox. Clearly, the Keller towing vehicle
apparatus, that is expressly provided with a preferred angular
position limit of no more than 15/-20/ to address the hazards of
jackknifing, would have to be extensively reworked and/or
entirely reconfigured to convert it to a locking mechanism
comprising a joe-dog type trailer-pulling unit for maintaining an
axle of the trailer-pulling unit, and the axles of a trailer in
parallel when a powered locking member in an extended position is
engaged with an aperture. The Adams disclosure (thrust bearing
units with braking means) to prevent and control jackknife action
of trailer assemblies with a dolly (joe-dog) therebetween, and
the Fox teaching of angularly spaced openings (30/, 60/, and
80/) for engagement with bell-crank levers to lock a truck and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007