Appeal No. 2006-0093
Application No. 10/295,326
not mean the examiner’s reliance on McCoy in combination with
Johnson and McWethy is the result of hindsight or merely
selective picking and choosing among the prior art to recreate
or reconstruct the claimed subject matter. There appears to be
adequate reasons provided by the collective teachings of the
applied patents to justify the combination as posited by the
examiner, i.e., to utilize a square or rectangular tow bar to
eliminate the problem of unwanted rotational motion during towing
associated with a cylindrical tow bar like that of Johnson, and
to employ a rectangular tow bar having a shape similar to that
of McCoy to reduce material costs and weight. Again we note
that combining the teachings of the prior art references does
not, as appellants seem to imply, require or involve an ability
to physically combine their specific structures. Thus, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 45 through 55, 57 and
59 through 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Johnson in view of McWethy and McCoy.
Since each of the rejections before us on appeal has been
sustained, it follows that the decision of the examiner is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007