Appeal No. 2000-0031
Application No. 09/061,526
support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
7, filed February 26, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 9,
filed June 15, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking at the examiner’s rejection of independent claims
2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that Takahashi
discloses a foothold or climbing step of the general type set
forth in the independent claims on appeal, i.e., a foothold
having an elongated tread portion (5) and side portions (4)
extending from the tread portion, said foothold further
comprising a core (2) and a synthetic resin layer (10)
covering the core. What Takahashi lacks with regard to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007