Ex Parte Veal - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-0388                                                                  Page 2                
              Application No. 09/499,124                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     The appellant's invention relates to the field of boat trailers.  More specifically,                 
              the invention comprises a skid assembly which may be attached to the frame of a boat                        
              trailer just forward of the wheels to prevent the boat trailer wheel from dropping abruptly                 
              off the end of a ramp, thereby causing the trailer to become stuck (specification, p. 1).                   
              A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                    


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                      
              appealed claims are:                                                                                        
              Herndon                             3,933,372                           Jan. 20, 1976                       
              Des Roches                          5,195,767                           Mar. 23, 1993                       
              Eggleston                           5,806,871                           Sep. 15, 1998                       



                     Claims 1 to 4, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                 
              unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Des Roches.                                                          


                     Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                             
              Eggleston in view of Des Roches and Herndon.                                                                


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                        
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007