Ex Parte Smith - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2004-0072                                                                  Page 2                
              Application No. 09/904,341                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     The appellant's invention relates to a device to prevent or discourage the theft of                  
              trailers which are towed by trucks or automobiles.  More particularly, the                                  
              invention relates to a leg or jack that is placed on the periphery of the trailer to retard                 
              the withdrawal of the trailer from where it has been parked (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:                                                                                        
              Galasso et al. (Galasso)                   5,242,178                    Sept. 7, 1993                       
              Peterson et al. (Peterson)                 5,421,611                    June 6, 1995                        
              Knutson                                    5,599,002                    Feb. 4, 1997                        


                     Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       
              Knutson in view of Galasso.                                                                                 


                     Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                             
              Knutson in view of Galasso and Peterson.                                                                    


                     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  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007