Appeal No. 97-4242
Application 08/451,281
The argument of appellants (brief, pages 3 through 5)
simply does not convince this panel of the board of error on
the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 1 as being
anticipated by the Hoagland document.
Like the examiner (answer, page 3), we recognize that the
fall protection safety suit set forth in claim 1 does not
address vertical free fall, as argued (brief, page 3). As we
explained, infra, the Hoagland safety suit is clearly capable
of fall protection. Appellant has not come forward with any
evidence to the contrary. We view the argument (brief, page
4), that the Hoagland suit would not prevent injury to the
wearer who falls from a certain height, as simply unsupported
attorney argument. We note that claim 1 only broadly addresses
fall protection. The circumstance that the patentee discusses
protection from injuries
incident to hoisting, as focused upon in the brief (page 4),
does not detract from our assessment of the safety suit of
Hoagland as being capable of fall protection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007