Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
orthopedic standpoint, for the
child to maintain an erect
posture within the chair, for
prolonged slumping may lead to
deformity. But the spine of a
baby is so flexible and almost
rubber-like that he literally
collapses in an unsupported chair
of ordinary design, and all that
restrains him from sliding
completely out of his seat is the
safety belt. This problem is
encountered not merely in very
young infants, but also in babies
up to the age of twenty-four
months.” (Column 1, pages 14-22).
Quinton discloses a convex lumbar support to promote comfort.
Cerf is evidence that it was known in the art to provide a
lumbar support for a child. Cerf also teaches that there is a
need to provide a safety strap in a child’s chair (Column 2,
lines 9-11). As such, it would have been obvious to provide
the chair disclosed in Turner with a lumbar support as taught
by Quinton and Cerf in order to aid a child in maintaining
correct posture.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Turner in view of Quinton and Cerf as applied to claim 1 and
further in view of French Patent. The French Patent is cited
for teaching rungs. It would have been obvious to provide the
23
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007