Appeal No. 99-0622 Page 12
Application No. 08/637,717
defined in the claim. This juncture is disposed between the
tether strap (42) of the harness and the support structure.
Accordingly, even if the teachings of Leach and Brda were
combined as proposed by the examiner to provide leg straps or
loops on the Leach safety harness , the resulting device would8
still not render the safety harness recited in claim 25
obvious.
For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained to
reverse the standing rejection of claim 25, and of claims 26,
27, 30, 31, 36, 37 and 39 which depend therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leach in view of Brda.
We have reviewed the teachings of Dalmaso, but we find
nothing therein which overcomes the deficiencies of the Leach
and Brda combination as discussed above with regard to claim
25. It follows then that we must also reverse the examiner's
rejection of claims 28, 29 and 41, which depend from claim 25,
8 As the thigh straps of Brda are designed to support the user in a
suspended state during rappelling (see Figure 3) and as the Leach harness is
not disclosed for use in supporting a child in a suspended state, it is not
immediately apparent to us why Brda would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the addition of leg straps to a child restraint of the type
disclosed by Leach. However, as the appellant has not challenged the
examiner's position on this issue and as it would not alter our ultimate
disposition of this appeal, we shall accept the examiner's position on this
issue.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007