Appeal No. 2005-0775 Page 3
Application No. 09/815,628
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claims 15 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Venegas I in view of Bobrowski. The examiner concedes that the
rails (first and second horizontal stanchions 22, 26) of Venegas I are not “releasably
engaged” to the vertical posts (first and second vertical stanchions 12, 16), as called for
in claim 17. To overcome this deficiency, the examiner has taken the position that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention to modify the guard rail assembly of Venegas I to include releasable
engagement between the rail and post members, for the purpose of facilitating
adjustability and flexibility of the assembly as taught by Bobrowski, presumably by
providing fittings at the junctions of the vertical stanchions and horizontal stanchions as
taught by Bobrowski.
Bobrowski discloses a guard rail assembly comprising balusters 20, 20', a top
handrail 24 and bottom rails 26 which “are preferably elongated, extruded aluminum
structures having the same generally rectangular cross section which prevents rotation
thereof within the junctioning units or fittings 30, 32 and 34” (column 1, lines 68-71).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007