Appeal No. 98-1456 Page 8
Application No. 08/294,958
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a child safety seat
to include a lower seating panel/section having separate
integral leg support elements that are spaced apart from one
another to define an opening. However, it is our opinion that
these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art.
In that regard, while both Sckolnik and Allum teach child
safety seats, neither Sckolnik or Allum teach or suggest using
a lower seating
panel/section having separate integral leg support elements
that are spaced apart from one another to define an opening.
To supply these omissions in the teachings of Sckolnik and
Allum, the examiner made a determination (answer, pages 5-6)
that these differences would have been obvious to an artisan
based upon the teachings of Dukatz. However, it is our view
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007