Appeal No. 99-0622 Page 7
Application No. 08/637,717
While Leach does disclose a tether strap (42) adapted to
be secured to a support structure and a fastening strap (26)
secured to the buckle rod (36), Leach does not disclose any
additional element responding to the recited second portion of
the connector.
For the reasons discussed above, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of independent claim 42, or claims 44
through 47 and 50 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
Turning now to the rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Leach in view of Dalmaso, we
have reviewed the teachings of Dalmaso, but find nothing
therein to overcome the deficiencies of Leach discussed
above. It follows then that we must also reverse the7
standing rejection of claim 43, which depends from claim 42,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7 Furthermore, we note for the record that we agree with the appellant's
argument that there is no teaching to combine Leach and Dalmaso as proposed by
the examiner (brief, page 8). The energy absorbing lanyard of Dalmaso is
disclosed for checking the fall of a worker (column 1, lines 11 through 16).
The worker is decelerated gradually rather than being jerked to an abrupt halt
(column 1, lines 16 through 35). As the harness of Leach is not disclosed for
use in checking a person's fall, it is not apparent why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to add an energy absorbing unit on the Leach
device.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007