Appeal No. 2003-1327
Application 09/375,713
feet (143 of Figs. 9 and 13) projecting downwardly from a base
(119) and a pair of wheels (133) arranged in relation to the
stabilizer feet so that the wheels do not contact the floor when
all of the feet are engaging the floor and wherein a pair of said
feet are disposed forwardly of the wheels to act as a fulcrum
(Fig. 13).
Based on the combined teachings of Donovan and Amstutz, the
examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time appellants’ invention was
made to provide Donovan with the floor-engaging stabilizer feet
and raised transport wheels of Amstutz, “because the stabilizer
feet help provide a more stable working position for the device,
wherein the feet prevent the device from moving when movement is
not desired” (answer, page 4).
Appellants assert (brief, pages 7-12) that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because
there would be no reason or motivation for one skilled in the art
to combine Amstutz with Donovan since the Donovan device is made
for mobility, and already has a means for moving the tractor tire
transport holder from one location to another, i.e., the castors
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007