Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
of Turner because doing so would provide
added support to the lumbar regions of an
occupant’s back. Quinton further has the
advantage of being adjustable to
accommodate the needs of a variety of
occupants including children of different
sizes for whom an adult can adjust said
lumbar support. [Examiner’s Answer at pages
4-5]
We agree with the analysis of the examiner. In
addition, we are of the opinion that motivation for the
combination is provided in the body of the Quinton reference
in that Quinton discloses that the lumbar support promotes
comfort and avoids and alleviates backache (Col. 1, lines 7-
8). Therefore, in our opinion, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to provide the convex lumbar
support disclosed in Quinton on the Turner chair to obtain the
advantages of such lumbar support as taught by Quinton. In
view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. In addition, we will sustain this
rejection as it relates to claims 5, 12, , 20 and 22 because
the appellant has not argued the separate patentability of
these claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In regard to claim 19, the appellant argues that
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007