Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
and of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 grouped therewith (brief, page 4).
Claim 8 recites that “said securing device comprises a
cam buckle.” Appellants contend that this feature is not
taught or suggested by Chollet, but the examiner asserts on
page 7 of the answer that Chollet’s lever arm and cam portion
28 provide a cam buckle. We consider the examiner’s position
to be well taken, and will sustain the rejection of claim 8.
With regard to method claims 17 to 19 the examiner states
(answer, page 8):
In the rejection of claims 17-19, the examiner holds
that the use of the structure of the combination of
Peek and Chollet, for securing an occupant within
the seat and adjusting the restraint device, in the
manner discussed in detail above, would inherently
and necessarily encompass the “method for securing”
steps of claims 17-19.
However, we agree with appellants that the applied combination
of references does not teach or suggest the claimed method.
Claim 17 recites, inter alia, positioning the shoulder straps
onto the child with the clip in a first position, moving the
clip relative to the shoulder straps to a second position,
and then securing the clip to at least one of the shoulder
straps. We find no disclosure in Peek, nor do we consider it
to be inherent in the use of Peek’s disclosed apparatus, as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007