Appeal No. 2005-1016
Application No. 10/326,780
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection.
There is no dispute that Pitchford discloses the claimed
railcar with the exception of the reflector being fixed to the
exterior faces of the roller bearings. However, Lester, as
pointed out by the examiner, discloses the affixation of a
geometric shape to the rotational part of a vehicle "to function
as a passive beacon to alert others of the presence of the
vehicle" (column 1, lines 11-13). Although appellant's arguments
focus upon the embodiment of Lester relating to an aircraft, and
the different considerations for applying a reflector to an
aircraft and a railcar, Lester clearly teaches the broader
application of a reflector to a rotating part of a vehicle.
Thus, although Lester does not expressly mention a railcar, we
find that the examiner has drawn the proper legal conclusion that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
apply the teachings of Lester to the known problem of making
railcars more visible to other vehicles. Indeed, Lester teaches
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007