Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
USPQ at 549), we perceive the artisan would have been well aware
of the customary practice of providing cushions for boat seats
and would have found it obvious to utilize cushions on the seats
in the passenger compartment 7 of the embodiment of Figs. 11-15
of the Japanese publication.
In summary:
The examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims
1 and 15 as being anticipated by Metcalf and claim 1 as being
anticipated by the Japanese publication are affirmed.
The examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Metcalf is reversed.
The examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 3
based on the combined disclosures of Metcalf and Yamaoka and
claims 19, 20, 36 and 37 based on the combined disclosures of
Metcalf, Babb and the Japanese publication are affirmed.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 62 and 63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Metcalf is reversed.
New rejections of claims 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, 36, 37, 62 and
63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been made.
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based
-17-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007