Appeal No. 2004-2347 Page 6
Application No. 09/839,519
Section 102 rejection is sustained. In this regard, it should be noted that the appellants’
device is equipped with pockets so it also functions as a tool holder.
Since the appellants have chosen to group dependent claims 3-7 with claim 1
(Brief, page 5), the rejection of these claims also is sustained.
(2)
Independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13 and 15-17 stand rejected as
being anticipated by Weller which, like Hardy, is directed to a tool holder that is to be
installed over the top of a ladder. Claim 12 also recites a front cover “dimensioned to
cover a space between the top step and the ladder top” (emphasis added). The
argument advanced by the appellants here is that Weller does not disclose a safety
ladder guard in which the front cover “covers only the top of the space between the top
step and the ladder top” (Brief, page 6).
However, this argument fails because it is not commensurate with the limitations
recited in claim 12. As was the case with claim 1, claim 12 requires merely that “a”
space between the top step and the top of the ladder be covered by the front cover,
which clearly is the case with the front cover in Weller (see Figure 1). Also, while
Weller has not labeled his invention as a ladder safety device, the structure recited in
claim 12 reads on it and therefore the claim is anticipated.
The rejection of independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13 and 15-17 is
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007