Appeal No. 97-1079
Application 08/562,471
Even assuming that Kummerlin teaches a pivotal mounting
and pivot axis as claimed, the axis would not be located “within
both said first plane and second plane” as claimed. That is, the
supporting frame is defined by independent claim 1 as being
located in the first plane that in turn is defined as being
parallel to the longitudinal plane of the ladder. Consistent
with the appellant’s specification, one of ordinary skill in this
art would interpret the first plane to pass through the members
106, 107 of Kummerlin, which plane is clearly offset from the
location where the U-shaped frame 112 is angularly adjusted (see
Fig. 8).
Although Kummerlin states that the embodiment of Figs. 7 and
8 “can be used as desired as wall spacer, ladder stiffener or
ground leveling base,” we find nothing in the combined teachings
of Kummerlin and either Lamp or Schwarting which would fairly
suggest the placement on the U-shaped supporting frame 112 of
Kummerlin an “impaling device” which is “available to penetrate a
vertical wall surface” as set forth in independent claim 1.
While both Lamp and Schwarting teach impaling devices, such
devices are on the end of crutches which engage the ground.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007