Appeal No. 97-1079
Application 08/562,471
over the prior art based on those portions of the claims which
are understandable.
It is the examiner’s position that:
Kummerlin (7) shows the claimed ladder and attachment
with the exception of the claimed foot pad section.
Both Lamp and Schwarting show foot pad sections as
claimed to prevent slipping. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify the tips of
Kummerlin’s legs to comprise pad sections as claimed in
lieu of his plates (114') to prevent slipping of his
ladder. [Answer, page 3.]
In support of this position the answer states:
The examiner’s [sic, examiner] notes that while
Kummerlin does not show or state that his u-shape[d]
frame (112) pivots between a forwardly and rearwardly
position, the structural pivot connection (see fig. 8)
between support frame (103) and u-shaped frame (112)
[sic, (112) allows for such pivoting. Kummerlin’s
support frame (103) lies in a first plane defined by
and from the outer edge of hook (104) to the outer edge
of arms (103'), and the pivot axis of the u-shape[d]
frame is located in arms (103'), and the pivot axis of
the u-shape[d] frame is located in the arms (103'),
therefore, the pivot axis lies both within the plane of
the u-shaped frame and the plane of the support frame.
[Page 4.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. Initially, we
cannot agree with the examiner that Kummerlin in Fig. 8 teaches
that the U-shaped frame 112 is “pivotally mounted” on the
supporting frame 103' so as to be “pivotable about a pivot axis
relative to said supporting frame” as expressly required by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007