Appeal No. 2006-0093
Application No. 10/295,326
the towing vehicle as taught in McWethy since the two different
forms of tow bars are well known variants in the hitch art and
the substitution of one for the other would only depend upon the
shape of the receiver preferred on the vehicle.
Appellant contends (brief, page 14) that Johnson “entirely
fails to teach the recited ‘ball member.’” We do not agree.
Like the examiner, it is our view that the roller (14) of Johnson
with its “spherical or ball-shaped” outer surface (col. 3, lines
23-24) constitutes a “ball member” as broadly recited in the
claims on appeal. Appellant’s attempt to distinguish the claimed
“ball member” on the basis of its prospective use for receiving
assemblies commonly used on many of today’s automobiles is of no
moment, since no such limitation appears in the claims on appeal
and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the “ball
member” (14) of Johnson is not also capable of receiving such
common assemblies. As for the assertion that there is no
teaching or suggestion by McWethy to selectively follow the use
of an aperture, such as aperture (30), yet ignore the teachings
of using a mounting plate assembly (brief, pages 13-14), we note
that while appellants’ specification may indicate a desire to
eliminate the use of mounting plates, there is no limitation in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007