Appeal No. 2005-2435
Application No. 10/407,498
The appealed subject matter also relates to a ladder in combination
with the aforementioned safety device and to a method for securing
a ladder to a structure via the aforementioned safety device. This
appealed subject matter is adequately represented by independent
claim 1 and claim 13 which depends from claim 1.
These claims read as follows:
1. A safety device for a ladder which ladder has an upper
portion, said safety device comprising:
an arm for attaching to an upper portion of a ladder, said
arm having two end portions comprising a first end portion for
attachment to the upper portion of a ladder and a second end
portion, wherein at least a portion of the arm is flexible; and
a holding mechanism joined to the second end portion of the
arm, wherein said holding mechanism is attachable to a portion
of a structure to hold a ladder in place.
13. The safety device of Claim l wherein the ladder has a
pair of side rails and a plurality of rungs extending between said
side rails, said safety device is configured so that said holding
mechanism is spaced away from the rungs of the ladder when said
safety device is holding the ladder to a structure.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner
in the § 102 and § 103 rejections before us2:
2 In his answer, the examiner cites a publication to Charlton on
page 2 and discusses this publication on page 6. However, this publication
has no relevance whatsoever to any of the issues raised by the rejections
before us on this appeal. The examiner's answer is not an appropriate forum
in which to present and discuss a reference which is irrelevant to the
involved appeal, and therefore we admonish the examiner and his appeal
conferees to no longer engage in such a practice.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007