Appeal No. 2006-0093
Application No. 10/295,326
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 34 through 44, 56, 58 and 62 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson in view
of McWethy, the examiner has determined that Johnson discloses a
one-piece pintle hitch assembly with a longitudinal tow bar (12)
adapted to be connected at a proximal end to a towing vehicle
(col. 2, lines 6-8), a neck portion and a lower jaw member (10,
11) integrally formed and non-separable from a distal end of the
tow bar (12) and having an aperture (at pivot bolt 26) in the
neck portion, a “ball member” (14) releasably secured to a distal
end of the lower jaw member and extending therefrom, and a
movable upper jaw member (25) having an aperture for cooperating
with pivot bolt (26) to hingedly secure the upper jaw member
to the neck portion, the upper jaw member being movable from a
closed position in which the upper jaw contacts the “ball member”
(Fig. 2) to an open position in which the upper jaw is spaced
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007