Appeal No. 2004-1635
Application No. 10/083,915 Page 4
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case before us, we agree with the
examiner that Wright discloses, either expressly or inherently,
every limitation of representative claim 1. Concerning this
matter, we observe that Wright discloses a device including a
screw, such as screw (5, figures 1 and 2), a substantially
straight lever (4, figures 1 and 2) with first and second
substantially right angle bends and a loop connected to the
second bend as shown in the drawing figures of Wright.
Appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination that
Wright discloses a device corresponding to the claim 1 device but
for the alleged functional requirement that the claimed device is
a “step for climbing” that is “sufficient to perform as a tree
step, handhold, or lanyard clip” (Claim 1).
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that the claim 1 step for
climbing limitation requires a structural limitation, “such as
resistance to structural collapse under weight” (reply brief,
page 3) that is not found in the prior art. Appellant further
maintains that the “sufficient to perform limitation” of claim 1
further specifies the functional limitation and restricts the
claimed step structure in a way to differentiate over the applied
prior art. This is so, according to appellant, because the
device of Wright is disclosed for use as a hat hanger and is made
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007