Appeal No. 97-1777
Application 08/328,708
tabs [Abstract].
With regard to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 7
as being anticipated by Aarons, the appellants’ contention that “none” of the features
recited in these claims is taught or suggested by Aarons (see pages 5 and 6 in the main
brief) is completely lacking in merit. Suffice it to say that the bar 10, support member 13,
side pieces/hooks 11, 12, and extensions 14 of the Aarons’ metal or plastic apparatus fully
meet all of the limitations in these claims including those relating to the rear wall-mountable
bar, front ladder contacting and supporting bar, left and right cross-members, and left and
right guides, respectively. The appellants’ more specific argument that their invention
differs from the Aarons device in that it does not contact the gutter at any point and does
not require any transverse member to abut the gutter (see, for example, page 7 in the main
brief and page 2 in the reply brief) is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with
the relatively broad scope of claims 1 through 4 and 7. More particularly, none of these
4
claims excludes contact between the claimed device and a gutter. Thus, the appellants’
position that the subject matter recited in claims 1 through 4 and 7 differs from that
disclosed by Aarons is not well taken.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1
4 Indeed, the appellants’ specification indicates that when the claimed device is
used with a gutter, its rear bar 3 will make contact therewith (see pages 5 and 7).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007