Appeal No. 1999-1483 Page 3
Application No. 08/732,887
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, the applied prior art references, the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner, and the guidance provided by our
reviewing court. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
As manifested in independent claim 1, the appellant’s inventive ladder comprises a
top step, two leg assemblies mounted to the top step and each having means for adjusting
the length thereof and a foot, a step assembly mounted to the top step and having a
plurality of steps and a foot, the step assembly foot and the two leg assembly feet forming
a tripod configuration,
means for pivoting the leg assemblies and the step assembly from a closed
position in which the leg assemblies and the step assembly [are extended,
sic] vertically downward from the top step to an angular position in which the
leg assemblies and the step assembly are angularly displaced from vertical
and oriented along radial axes positioned 120 degrees from one another in
the tripod configuration (emphasis added), and
means for locking each leg assembly and the step assembly to an angular
position along the radial axes positioned 120 degrees from one another
(emphasis added).
The examiner is of the opinion that the subject matter recited in this claim is rendered
obvious by the combined teachings of Burrows and High. A key finding in this rejection is
that in the Burrows ladder the leg assemblies and step assembly “are angularly displaced
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007