Appeal 2006-2888
Application 10/318,425
1 secure the rungs in the slot. In Tolman, it is the slots themselves that secure
2 the rungs therein by bending. Aside from the configuration of the slots, the
3 rungs are not otherwise secured to the side rails.
4 Appellant's argument that Tolman is not analogous art is not well
5 taken for two reasons. First, as discussed above, KSR reminds us that, in
6 making determinations of obviousness, we must not limit our analysis only
7 to the problem(s) Appellant was trying to solve. Moreover, as also
8 discussed above, Tolman is reasonably related to the problem that the
9 Appellant faces, i.e., assembling a device which includes two side rails,
10 rungs confined within the slots of the two side rails and a connecting
11 member for connecting the ends of the side rails and thus satisfies the well
12 established test for analogous art.
13 We are also not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Tolman
14 does not disclose a ramp because it is not necessary for Tolman to explicitly
15 disclose a ramp. All that is necessary is for the Tolman device to be capable
16 of functioning as a ramp. In this regard we note that the Tolman device is
17 fully capable of operating as a ramp when used with an appropriately sized
18 vehicle such as a toy vehicle.
19
20 Obviousness rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 16, 18 and 19
21 We will not sustain the rejection of the above referenced claims under
22 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lucht because the rungs 54 are
23 connected by a bolt 62. As such, Lucht does not disclose or suggest that the
24 rung is not otherwise secured to the side rails as required by independent
25 claims 1, 11, and 16 from which claims 2-6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 depend.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013