Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291 Page 5
Turning to the examiner’s rejections of representative claim
1, appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination that
the snow plow of each of Mason and Carlson includes structure
corresponding to the claimed wedge-shaped blade having a hinge
and a handle attached to a rear side of the blade. The examiner
additionally relies on Clements and Kim as teaching the use of a
heating element with an ice scraper which, according to the
examiner, would have suggested the attachment of a heating
element to the snow plows of either Mason or Carlson to result in
a structure encompassed by representative claim 1.
It follows that the dispositive issues before us are: (1)
whether the combined teachings of Mason, Clements and Kim would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to add a heating
element to the snow plow of Mason in a manner so as to arrive at
a snow plow embraced by representative claim 1; and (2) whether
the combined teachings of Carlson, Clements and Kim would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to add a heating element to
the snow plow of Carlson in a manner such that such heating
element addition results in a snow plow corresponding to a snow
plow embraced by representative claim 1? We answer those
questions in the affirmative.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007