Appeal Number: 2006-3291
Application Number: 10/178,845
Claims 5-8 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Davis and Vento.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis, Vento
and Izumida.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis,
Vento and Riach.
Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis.
ISSUES
The issues pertinent to this appeal are
• Whether Davis shows a seat having a concavity extending laterally across
the lumbar lower back portion such that no portion of the concavity between
the thoracic upper back portion and the bottom edge portion presses against
a part of the user below the belt when the user is wearing a duty belt and
sitting against the seat in a normal seating position.
• Whether Davis shows or suggests a concavity about 10 inches high.
• Whether Davis shows or suggests a concavity about 4 inches deep.
In particular, the appellant contends that Davis’s sacral counter pressure pad
(Fig. 2, Ref. 24), located in Davis’s lumbar concavity, would press against the
6 Not argued in the Brief or Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013