Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
patents, and3
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as well as the rejection of claims 15, 5, and 6
which stand or fall therewith. Our reasoning in support of
this determination appears below.
Claim 14 requires, inter alia, a child seat including a
seat back and a seat cushion, seat belt webbing having a
plurality of sections including first and second shoulder belt
sections, with each shoulder belt section having an upper end
and a lower end, anchor means permanently attaching the upper
ends of the shoulder belt sections immovably to the seat back,
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of3
the disclosure thereof for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only
the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably have been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re
Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007