Appeal No. 2003-0683 Page 7
Application No. 09/319,680
primary spring 2, this is not, in our opinion, sufficient to inherently disclose that
secondary spring 6 is freely movable within the primary spring 2 from one end of the
primary spring 2 to the other end of the primary spring 2. Moreover, the appellants set
forth in both briefs ample reasons why an artisan would not desire an automobile seat
cushion to have a secondary spring be freely movable within the primary spring 2.
For the reasons set forth above, the subject matter of the claims under appeal is
not disclosed in Fischmann. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1 to 9 and 11 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007