Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
In our view, patentability cannot be found in the numerical
ranges and recitations in claim 12 for the width of the lumbar
support and/or the distance the lumbar support is spaced from
the seat. As our reviewing in Court said in In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990):
the law is complete with cases in which the
difference between the claimed invention
and the prior art is some range and other
variable within the claim ... these cases
have consistency held that such a
situation, the applicant must show that the
particular range is critical, generally by
showing the claim range achieves unexpected
results relative to the prior art range.
Appellant has made no such showing in the instant case and
such we conclude that patentability can not rest on the
recited ranges and dimensions.
Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S. C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of
Quinton and Cerf. Turner discloses the article of furniture
as claimed, except Turner does not disclose a lumbar support
nor a safety strap. Quinton discloses a lumbar support which
promotes comfort and avoids and alleviates backache. Cerf
discloses that:
It is desirable from the
22
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007