Appeal No. 2006-0093
Application No. 10/295,326
the claims on appeal that would exclude use of a mounting plate
assembly or receiving member (20) like that of McWethy which is
directly attached to the towing vehicle (col. 8, lines 1-4). In
addition, concerning appellants’ assertion of no suggestion to
combine Johnson and McWethy, we observe that McWethy provides
ample suggestion (e.g., col. 3, lines 54-60, and col. 9, lines
34-44) for replacing the cylindrical tow bar (12) of Johnson
with a rectangular/square tow bar and receiver coupling
arrangement like of McWethy including an aperture proximate the
end of the tow bar adjacent the towing vehicle for receiving a
securing pin for coupling the tow bar to a similarly configured
receiver mounted to the towing vehicle.
Although it is true that the hitch apparatus of McWethy
fails to teach the use of a lower jaw in conjunction with a ball
member, we note that the examiner has relied upon Johnson to
evidence such structure in the prior art and has relied upon
McWethy as evidence of why it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to
replace the cylindrical tow bar (12) of Johnson with a square tow
bar like that seen in McWethy and to utilize a receiver and pin
arrangement like that described in McWethy to secure the tow bar
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007