Appeal No. 1999-1506
Application 08/815,151
in a hole, whereas the lock 68 of Benninger is constructed to
allow the attachment (arm) 40 to be manually moved to
different locations on the ladder (col. 3, lines 3 to 7). It
is not
apparent, therefore, what motivation there would have been for
one of ordinary skill to permanently attach the Benninger
attachment at a single location on the ladder by using the
locking means disclosed by Revol, when such modification of
the Benninger attachment would vitiate the advantage of ready
relocation disclosed by Benninger (col. 1, lines 32 to 40).
It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to
so modify the Benninger device as to make it unsuitable for
its intended purpose. Ex parte Rosenfeld, 130 USPQ 113, 115
(Bd. Apps. 1961).
Rejection (2) will therefore not be sustained as to claim
18, or as to claims 19 to 23 and 34, dependent thereon.
Rejection (4) will not be sustained since the Moushon
reference, applied in rejection (4), does not supply the
deficiencies in the combination of Benninger and Crockett or
Revol discussed above.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007