Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
storage is a goal of transportation. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 6). The
examiner further articulates his rationale as follows,
If the trailer is not loaded to maximum
weight capacity when the cargo has reached
the maximum allowable height, then the
trailer is not as efficient as possible and
leads to increased transport costs since more
tractor trailers must be used. Since the
maximum height is set, as are the lengths
and width of the trailer, then the only way to
safely provide more storage volume is by
lowering at least one section of the floor, as
taught by Lutkenhouse.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 6).
With regard to the rejection of claim 11, the appellant argues
that the examiner is improperly relying on “observations” of how one
of skill in the art might recognize the need for more storage space.
The appellant asserts that the examiner employed hindsight, and there
is no teaching or suggestion from the prior art to lower the central
portion of the floor of Carter or Elliott, and even if that were taught,
there is no further teaching or suggestion to add doors to cover that
space. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-5).
We do not agree that hindsight reconstruction of the prior art is
required to sustain the conclusion that the appellant’s invention would
- 14 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007