Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
predicated upon the art against a definite claim.
We now address the rejection of claims 2, 3, 4, 13
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Turner and
Quinton and further in view of Bougher. The examiner stated:
Turner lacks a safety restraint system.
Bougher teaches a child seat with a safety
restraint system... It would have been
obvious to provide the safety restraint
system disclosed by Bougher for the child
seat of Turner since Bougher’s safety
restraint system is provided to hold a
child secure and since the safety restraint
system with two shoulder straps as
disclosed by Bougher is known to those
skilled in the art to limit relative
lateral movement of an occupant as well as
forward movement. [Examiner’s Answer pages
6-7]
We agree with the analysis of the examiner, and thus
we will sustain this rejection as it relates to claim 2. We
will also sustain this rejection as to claim 13 because
appellant has not argued the separate patentability of claim
13. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528.
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to
combine the safety strap taught by Bougher with the lumbar
support taught by Quinton. We do not agree. As stated above,
we find ample suggestion for including the lumbar support of
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007