Appeal No. 2004-1938
Application No. 09/887,741
the tongue (12) of the towing member from the trailing position
seen in phantom lines in Figure 3 to the operative pivoted
position seen in solid lines in Figure 3. Thus, as set forth in
Schurz, the actuator (71) provides a swing-out feature for the
elongated towing member (12). There is nothing in Schurz to
indicate that the hydraulic actuator (71) is of such a size as to
have the capability of causing pivotal movement of the trailer
relative to the towing member (12) in the manner specified in
appellant's claims 1 and 5 on appeal. Any conclusion on the
examiner's part to the contrary is based entirely on unfounded
speculation and conjecture.
Since Schurz does not disclose or teach, either expressly or
inherently, each and every limitation of appellant's claims 1
through 4, 5, 6 and 9 on appeal, it follows that the examiner's
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be
sustained.
In summary, we note that the examiner's rejection of claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been sustained,
while the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 5, 6 and 9 under
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007