Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed March 24, 2006) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the appellant’s brief (filed August 4, 2005) and reply brief (filed
October 26, 2005) for the appellant’s arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior
art, and the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow. It is our view that, after consideration of
the record before us, the claimed invention would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention based on the
evidence relied upon by the examiner.
I. Obviousness Rejection
A. Independent Claim 6
In the rejection of independent claim 6, the examiner has
determined that Carter discloses a trailer having a floor (16) and rigid,
non-opening walls (20, 24, 28). The trailer has wheels (14) beneath
the floor (16), and the walls have solid lower portions (32). (Carter,
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007