Appeal No. 2004-0350
Application No. 09/570,507
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
Appellant and the Examiner concerning these rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 14 but not his rejection of
claims 15 and 16.
Relative to the game apparatus of Kraushaar, appealed
independent claims 1, 10 and 14 share a common distinction in that
they require a ladder or target fabricated from tubular material
such as horizontal rungs and vertical struts interconnected with
couplers therefor. In contrast, patentee’s game apparatus is
fabricated from horizontal rungs which are supported by vertical
walls. However, we conclude that it would have been obvious for
one having ordinary skill in the art to fabricate Kraushaar’s
apparatus with tubular material to thereby form a base and ladder
having horizontal rungs and vertical struts interconnected with
couplers in accordance with the teachings of Hailer (e.g., see
Figure 1 and the disclosure relating thereto including lines
7-35 in column 3). The so-fabricated apparatus of Kraushaar
would thereby possess the benefits of being easily broken down,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007