Appeal No. 2000-0500
Application No. 09/006,137
person leaning against said tree." The examiner's treatment
of the above-noted method steps in claim 14 on appeal is set
forth on page 4 of the answer, and is essentially that the
step of removing the vest is "viewed as an inherent function
of the vest and the zipper therewith," and that the step of
hanging the vest from a tree is "capable via member 60" in
Williams. A similar treatment of the steps in claim 15 is
found in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the answer,
wherein the examiner essentially urges that the safety jacket
and harness system of Williams have the "capability" of being
used in the manner required in appellants' claim 15 on appeal.
Appellants assert (brief, pages 5-8) that the Williams
reference does not teach or suggest the steps of "removing
said vest" and then "hanging said vest . . . around . . . said
tree" as in claim 14 on appeal, or the step of positioning the
vest and pad thereof in the manner set forth in claim 15 on
appeal, and that the examiner has accordingly improperly
rejected the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We
agree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007