Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
Quinton in the chair of Turner to obtain the advantages as
taught by Quinton of promoting comfort and avoiding or
alleviating backache. In addition, in our view, a person of
ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use the safety strap as taught by
Bougher in the child seat of Turner to obtain the self evident
advantage of restraining a child seated in the chair.
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to
combine an adjustable safety strap as recited in claim 3, with
an infant’s lumbar support. This argument is not persuasive
because Bougher discloses an adjustable strap and as discussed
above, there is ample suggestion to combine the teachings of
Turner, Quinton and Bougher. Therefore, we will sustain this
rejection as it relates to claim 3.
As appellant argues that claims 4 and 14 are
patentable for the same reasons that claim 2 is patentable, we
will sustain the rejection as to these claims also, as there
has been no argument regarding their separate patentability.
See In re Nelson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 6 and 21
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007