Appeal 2006-2888
Application 10/318,425
1 Obviousness rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 103(a) Lucht in view of Yeh.
3 We will not sustain this rejection because Lucht does not disclose
4 rungs that are confined in the slots in the side rails such that the rung is not
5 otherwise secured to the side rails, but rather discloses bolts 62 to secure the
6 rungs in the slots. Yeh does not cure the deficiencies of Lucht.
7
8 Obviousness rejection of claim 19
9 We will sustain this rejection because in our view the Tolman
10 reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Appellant,
11 namely how to assemble a device containing two side rails with slots in
12 which rungs are disposed and connecting members at the end of the side
13 rails.
14 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
15 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
16 AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 hh
25
26
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013