Appeal No. 96-3379
Application 08/248,775
(5) Claims 1 to 37, 45 to 47, 49 and 71, Weiner in view of
the disclosed conventional harness and SKY GENIE®;
(6) Claims 48 and 50, Weiner in view of the disclosed
conventional harness, SKY GENIE®, and Bernstein.
The primary reference, Weiner, discloses a safety system in
which a worker on a roof, standing on a horizontal safety line
60, wears a harness 68 attached to a lanyard 70. The lanyard is
attached by a rope grab 72 to a line 73 hanging from a higher
horizontal safety line 62. While Weiner does not disclose a
harness (“body engagement means”) with two connection means, or
the use of a lowering device, the examiner takes the position as
to rejections (1) to (4), that (answer page 3):
Vinai shows a harness with first(51a) and second
(72s) connecting means to enable attachment of a
plurality of suspension means. Sky Genie shows a
lowering suspension means for lowering a person on
a rope. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide Weiner with a
harness as claimed to enable the attachment of
plural suspension means at separate connecting
points, and a lowering device to facilitate the
lowering of a person after a fall. Furthermore,
to provide any conventional severing means eg. a
knife to sever or disconnect the rope grab means,
would have been an obvious mechanical expedient.
The claimed method of protecting a person, would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the modified system of Weiner.
He takes the same position with regard to rejections (5) and (6),
substituting the disclosed conventional harness for the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007