Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
It is clear that to increase safety of the trailer
of Carter at al., by reducing spills or falling
debris from the open side, one can add bi-
fold doors as taught by Elliott. This
combination will result in a trailer that is
easy to load while providing increased
safety to those around the trailer.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 6).
The appellant contends that the examiner is improperly
speculating as to how those of skill in the art might find it desirable to
combine the references to prevent debris from falling from the trailer
and that such speculation does not establish prima facie obviousness.
(Appellant’s Brief, p. 3). The appellant argues that that the examiner
has not supported his position with objective teachings in the prior art
or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. (Appellant’s Brief,
p. 3). The appellant further argues that
Not only is there a lack of any suggestion or
motivation to combine Carter and Elliott,
Carter actually considers issues associated
with falling debris, and has designed his
trailer “with an open side facing the edge of
the road so that any debris falling from the
open side will fall on the berm of the road.”
(See column 1, lines 13-15 and column 2,
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007