Appeal No. 2006-1189
Application 10/707,148
in paragraph [007] of the specification, the barrier is designed to have a low profile so that
adults and older children will have no difficulty stepping across or reaching over the barrier.
In paragraph 0016, it is further noted that the required depth or width of the barrier “is only
to be of a distance which is only slightly more than the step or two of an infant” and that
therefore, older children and adults will have no difficulty stepping over the barrier or
reaching across the barrier. Independent claims 2, 5 and 6 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in Appendix A attached to
appellant’s brief.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Marshall 4,431,166 Feb. 14, 1984
Claims 6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
Claims 2 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Marshall.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding the above-noted rejections
and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed January 11, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (filed December 1, 2005) and
reply brief (filed February 6, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007