Appeal No. 97-4242
Application 08/451,281
It is also appellants’ view that Hoagland does not show
or teach chest support (brief, pages 4 and 5). As should be
apparent from our earlier discussion, we do not share this
viewpoint. Once again, we refer to the breadth of claim 1,
particularly with respect to the recitation of the strap
assembly being “positioned to distribute fall-arresting
forces” to shoulders and vertically along the chest of the
wearer. As we see it, the document fairly informs a reader
thereof that firm embracing support is provided to the upper
torso portion of a person (the arms hanging freely). This
indicates to us that, in the above noted circumstance when a
safety line is attached and a wearer falls, the strap assembly
of Hoagland is positioned about the wearer so as to be capable
of distributing fall-arresting forces vertically along the
chest (part of the upper torso portion) of the wearer, as now
broadly claimed. Once again, we point out that appellants
have not come forward with any evidence to the contrary.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007