Appeal No. 2006-1129 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/775653
the trailer (col. 2, lines 45 to 51). The examiner's argument that Pyle Fig. 7 depicts the
sliding mechanism within the trailer frame is unpersuasive because the mechanism
shown in Pyle Fig. 7 is actually within the truck bed or attached to a tractor, according to
Pyle.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim
1 or claims 4, 7, 10 and 11 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 to 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pyle and APA on page 4 of the
specification. The examiner relies on APA for teaching that brake systems are normally
operated with pneumatic, electric or hydraulic energy.
We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
These claims depend from claim 1 and thus include the subject matter found lacking in
Pyle. APA does not cure the deficiencies found lacking in Pyle. We will likewise not
sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 12 and claims 13 and 14 dependent
thereon because claim 12 also requires that the hitch comprise the kingpin and that the
sliding mechanism be slidingly captured within the trailer frame.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007