Appeal No. 2006-0903
Application 10/426,550
substantially perpendicular direction from the rung portion and the
longitudinal member” (col. 4, lines 18-19), and are “adapted to
contact the tree or other object to be climbed, and should extend a
sufficient distance from the rung portion and longitudinal member to
provide enough clearance between the segment and the tree to allow
for the front of a climber’s boot to extend towards the tree beyond
the rung portion” (col. 4, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 1 the appellant argues: “Morris does not
disclose, teach or suggest a modular ladder having steps that
project radially outward from the tree or pole when mounted thereto.
Instead, Morris teaches steps that are horizontal rungs that have
separate transverse members that extend toward the tree to space the
ladder from the tree” (brief, page 6). The appellant argues as
though Morris’ horizontal rungs are the steps and the transverse
portions are separate from the steps. Actually, Morris’ transverse
members (3) are one piece comprising rung and transverse portions
(col. 4, lines 15-19; figure 8). The transverse members correspond
to the appellant’s steps, and the transverse portions of the
transverse members project radially outwardly from the tree (figure
1).
We therefore find that the modular ladder claimed in claim 1 is
anticipated by Morris. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection under
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007