Appeal No. 96-3379
Application 08/248,775
obvious over the prior art applied.
Although, as appellant acknowledges, the two-connection
harness and lowering devices such as the SKY GENIE® are known in
the art, we do not consider that there is any suggestion in the
art for combining them with the lanyard-rope grab safety system
disclosed by Weiner. The examiner argues that (answer, page 6):
If after a fall, with the system of Weiner, the problem
at hand to be resolved is the lowering of the user to a
safe place, a skilled mechanic in the safety art would
have appreciated the use of commercially available
lowering devices to accomplish this task, also if a
separate (second) connecting point to the harness for
the lowering device would be desirable over the single
connecting point disclosed by Weiner, a skilled
mechanic would have appreciated the use of commercially
available harness which comprises multiple connecting
points, e.g. Vinai, and appellant's disclosed prior art
harness in resolving the problem.
However, we find no suggestion in the disclosure of the prior art
Weiner system of the possible problem (lowering of the user)
postulated by the examiner. In fact, as appellant points out,
Weiner discloses at column 3, lines 23 to 25, that “In the event
of a fall on the roof surface, the free end 77 of the additional
line may be grasped to enable the worker to move upwardly on the
slope of the roof.” In view of this disclosure that the worker
can move upwardly after a fall, we see no reason or motivation
for one of ordinary skill to provide the worker with a lowering
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007