Appeal 2007-1802
Application 10/648,575
Appellants argue that Laurent and Schollmayer do not provide a teaching,
suggestion, or motivation within the references to combine their teachings
(Br. 7-8). Appellants argue that Laurent and Schollmayer teach away from
making the combination (Br. 8-9).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The claimed
invention specifies that the “vacuum console” is adapted to house a vacuum
nozzle. The present Specification does not provide a specific definition for
the shape or arrangement of the “vacuum console.” The Specification
indicates that the vacuum console may sit adjacent to the vehicle seat or can
be a part of the vehicle seat (Specification [0026]). Laurent and
Schollmayer describe a vacuum console that may sit adjacent to the vehicle
seat or can be a part of the vehicle seat. The claimed invention encompasses
the teaching of Laurent which describes the vacuum console as being placed
beneath the seat. The claimed invention also encompasses the teachings of
Schollmayer that describe the nozzle suction portion of the vacuum cleaning
system as located behind the armrests portion of the rear seat. We agree
with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine
the teachings of Laurent and Schollmayer to gain the advantage of
hiding/storing the vacuum cleaner and hose out of sight (Answer 6-7).
Regarding the rejections of claims 4 and 7-9, Appellants essentially
rely upon the arguments presented for the rejection of claim 1 (Br. 13-14).
These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the
Answer. Thus, we will uphold the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013