Ex parte DELEON et al. - Page 2




                     Appeal No. 97-1777                                                                                                                                                
                     Application 08/328,708                                                                                                                                            


                                                                                                          2                                                                            
                     stand objected to as depending from a rejected base.   Claim 15, the only other claim                                                                             
                     pending in the application, stands allowed.                                                                                                                       
                                The invention relates to a device for disposing a ladder adjacent a roof without                                                                       
                     contacting, and possibly damaging, the edge of the roof or a rain gutter associated                                                                               
                     therewith.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:                                                                         
                                1.  An apparatus for securing ladders against buildings and protecting rain gutters                                                                    
                     comprising a rear wall-mountable bar having a left end and a right end, a front ladder                                                                            
                     contacting and supporting bar having a first end and a second end, a left cross-member                                                                            
                     connected to the rear bar proximate to the left end and to the front bar proximate to the first                                                                   
                     end, a right cross-member connected to the rear bar proximate to the right end and to the                                                                         
                     front bar proximate to the second end, a left guide extending outward from the first end of                                                                       
                     the front bar, and a right guide extending outward from the second end of the front bar.                                                                          
                                The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of anticipation and                                                                             
                     obviousness are:3                                                                                                                                                 
                     Wigington                                               4,813,515                                Mar. 21, 1989                                                    
                     Aarons,                                                        493,868                                Feb.  9, 1978                                               

                                2 The term “the O-ring” in claim 14 lacks a proper antecedent basis, an informality                                                                    
                     which is deserving of correction in any further prosecution before the examiner.                                                                                  
                                3 Although the examiner makes reference to U.S. Patent No. 5,215,163 to Kent, Sr.                                                                      
                     et al. on page 4 in the main answer to support his position, this patent has not been                                                                             
                     included in the statement of any of the rejections on appeal.  Where a reference is relied                                                                        
                     on to support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there is no excuse for not                                                                         
                     positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection.  In re Hoch, 428 F.2d                                                                       
                     1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).  Accordingly, we have not                                                                                      
                     considered the teachings of Kent, Sr. et al. in reviewing the merits of the examiner's                                                                            
                     rejections.                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                          2                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007