Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
column 3, lines 36-38). The examiner admits that Carter does not
disclose the claimed doors.
The examiner further finds that Elliott teaches the use of a pair
of side-by-side, bi-fold doors (10) to close a loading side of a vehicle.
The doors are shown to have an outer frame and a covering material.
(Elliott, Figure 1). The examiner asserts that the covering material
would be inherently flexible due to the relatively thin thickness of the
material when compared to its other dimensions.
The examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a
pair of side-by-side, bi-fold doors, as taught by Elliott, to the open
side of the trailer of Carter to prevent debris from falling from the
trailer while allowing complete access to the open side during loading
and unloading. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 3). Specifically, with regard
to the motivation to combine Carter and Elliott, the examiner states
that Elliott teaches that the more enclosed a load is in a trailer, the
safer it is to transport the load by reducing spills and upset due to
shifting loads. (Elliott, column 2, lines 38-41). Carter discloses that
most debris falling from the open side of its trailer will fall on the
berm of the roadway. (Carter, column 5, lines 3-6). The examiner
recognizes that allowing debris to fall from the trailer is not acceptable
in all situations. As such, the examiner finds,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007