Appeal Number: 2006-3291
Application Number: 10/178,845
width and buttocks would begin would be above the height at which the sacrum of
a petite person with diminutive hip width and buttocks would begin, and thus
above the height of the position the lower edge of a belt on a petite person.
Therefore, a smaller user, such as a law enforcement officer, absent any
adjustment, such as might occur when joining a chase in hot pursuit, would find
that no portion of Davis’s lower portion touched the officer below the belt.
Therefore, the limitations of the seat device in claim 1 would be met by a
foreseeable user, thus anticipating claim 1.
We note that a similar conclusion would follow an analysis based on the
overlap of ranges of foreseeable user sizes with the range of potential heights of
Davis’s lower back portion.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Davis.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis and MacKenzie.
This claim depends from claim 1 and is not separately argued, nor even
referred to in the Grounds Of Rejection To Be Reviewed On Appeal (Br. 8).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis and MacKenzie.
Claims 5-8 and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis
and Vento.
These claims depend from claims 1 and 6 and are not separately argued, nor
even referred to in the Grounds Of Rejection To Be Reviewed On Appeal (Br. 8).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013