Appeal No. 2004-1381
Application No. 10/155,530
reasons, the rejection is not sustainable. We are not persuaded
by this argument for the reasons discussed in the aforementioned
anticipation rejection.
Appellant also argues that dependent claim 19 recites a
pattern having a pattern length that is longer than about 1 and
1/2 times a reduced louver width, and argue that Woodring does
not suggest such a pattern. We are not persuaded because
appellant has not demonstrated criticality with regard to the
claimed dimensions, as discussed by the examiner on page 5 of the
answer. See, e.g, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 195 USPQ 430,
433-34 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 20, on page 6 of the brief, appellant
argues that Woodring is silent with respect to the recited
structural arrangement that permits a louver to be assembled into
a suspension ladder, and also for a louver structure sized larger
than a rung length, to form a structural interference with the
rail structure of the ladder. In response, on page 5 of the
answer, the examiner states that the louvers of Woodring are
capable of performing this function. We agree, because, as the
examiner explained with respect to claims 1, 10, and 18, the
louvers/suspension mechanism of Woodring “maintain an alignment”.
As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §102(e) rejection, supra, ladder 27
is situated with regard to width 26 such that a structural
interference with the rail structure of the ladder is created.
This permits the louver to be assembled into the ladder 27 by
tilting the louver with respect to a suspension box of the
suspension ladder.
Therefore, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims
12, 15, 19, and 20 as being obvious over Woodring.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007