Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
combined teachings of the applied references would have
suggested the subject matter of claim 3 to one of ordinary
skill in the art to warrant a conclusion of obviousness under
the test set forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we will sustain the §
103 rejection of claim 3. We will also sustain the § 103
rejection of dependent claim 13 because the patentability of
this claim has not been argued separately of claim 1. See
Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 and Burckel, 592
F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claim 16, appellant
does not contend that Douglas’ tubular members 20 do not act
as stiffening elements. Instead, appellant’s only argument
supporting patentability is that ?neither Barkley nor Douglas
discloses a hollow stiffening element which accommodates a
pipe? (brief, page 14). In Figure 4, Douglas shows a pipe type
ladder (i.e., a ladder made from pipe like elements) extending
through each element 20. In any event, in the course of
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007