Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
separate and apart from Elliott’s teaching of an adjustable roof which
eliminates the need to cover loads with a tarpaulin and allows for
additional height clearance, when in the raised position, for a forklift
operator to load the trailer. Thus, there was no requirement that the
inventor use the teaching of the adjustable roof found in Elliott on the
trailer of Carter, in order to solve the problem confronting him.
B. Independent Claim 11
The examiner relies on the same combination of Carter, as
modified by the teaching of Elliott, in his rejection of claim 11, except
he notes that Carter, as modified, does not teach the trailer having a
central deeper section in the floor. The examiner finds that
Lutkenhouse teaches a trailer having such a central deeper section. As
such, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the
floor of the trailer of Carter, as modified, with a central deeper section
to increase storage space and make the doors of Carter, as modified,
with a variable height to cover the side of the central deeper section as
an obvious expedient that will prevent debris from falling out of the
trailer between the doors and the floor. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4)
Specifically, with regard to the motivation to combine Carter,
Elliott, and Lutkenhouse, the examiner finds that the need to increase
- 13 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007