Appeal No. 2006-0903
Application 10/426,550
THE REFERENCES
Grimes 5,277,273 Jan. 11, 1994
Jenkins, Jr. 5,816,362 Oct. 6, 1998 Morris 6,138,792
Oct. 31, 2000
Dech 6,170,609 Jan. 9, 2001
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-5, 12-14 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morris; claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Jenkins, Jr.; claims 6-10, 15-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Morris; and claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over either Morris in view of
Grimes, or Jenkins, Jr. in view of Dech.1
OPINION
Rejection of claims 1-5, 12-14 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Morris
Morris discloses a modular tree ladder comprising longitudinal
members (1A, 1B) connected to transverse members (3) that comprise
rung and transverse portions and preferably have “pi” shaped cross
sections (col. 1, lines 6-8; col. 3, lines 29-31 and 60-61; col. 4,
lines 59-62). The transverse portions (3A, 3B) “extend in a
1 A rejection of claims 1-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
in the final rejection (page 2) is not included in the examiner’s answer. We
consider this rejection to be withdrawn.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007