Appeal No. 2004-0072 Page 7
Application No. 09/904,341
With regard to claim 1, the examiner determined (final rejection, pp. 2-3) that it
would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to incorporate the use of a flattened pipe of Galasso (i.e., the resiliently
flexible coupling member 12) into the anti-theft device of Knutson in order to obtain the
strength properties of the cylindrical pipe (i.e., the cylindrical boss portion 32 of
Galasso's resiliently flexible coupling member 12) with a flattened end (i.e., the
elongated arm portion 30 of Galasso's resiliently flexible coupling member 12).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree. In our view, the disparate teachings of the applied prior art
would not have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Knutson's anti-theft device to arrive at the
claimed invention. Clearly, Galasso's resiliently flexible coupling member 12 provides
no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for an artisan to have modified Knutson's lift arm
64 to be a cylindrical pipe flattened at one end as set forth in claim 1. Moreover, even if
it would have been obvious to have modified Knutson's anti-theft device as set forth in
the rejections under appeal such would not have arrived at the claimed invention which
requires the bracket to be attached to a side of a trailer. Knutson's anti-theft device is
attached to the side of snowmobile, not a trailer, and the applied prior art contains no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007