Appeal No. 2003-1653
Application No. 09/828,102
roller assembly 40 so that the rollers 40 are struck by
plate 32. As the rollers 40 move up the inclined plane
of plate 32, they are maintained from deviating either
to the right or to the left by guide plates 30 and 31.
. . . As the towing vehicle moves closer to the roller
assembly, the roller assembly 40 is struck by edge 28
of the release arm 24 causing the release arm 24 to
disengage from plate 32 and allow plate 32 to fall
downwardly. . . . Meanwhile, the trailer roller
assembly 40, on plate 32, is positioned so that socket
46 is directly above ball 16. The entire roller
assembly 40 then falls by gravity over ball 16 [column
3, lines 6 through 27].
The examiner’s finding of general correspondence between the
flat base plate 32, release arm 24 and frame 48 disclosed by
Schrum and the ramp, support arm and frame recited in the
appealed claims is reasonable on its face and has not been
specifically disputed by the appellant.
With regard to independent claim 19, the examiner
acknowledges that Schrum’s flat base plate 32, release arm 24 and
frame 48 are not expressly responsive to the claim limitation
requiring the ramp, support arm and frame to be configured and
arranged such that the frame and trailer hitch lose contact with
the ramp prior to pivoting of the ramp and support arm from the
support position to the rest position. The examiner concludes,
however, that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Schrum III to have the frame and trailer hitch lose
contact with said ramp prior to pivoting of said ramp
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007