Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 16
Application No. 08/625,936
Claims 1 through 8 are drawn to a linkage assembly4
comprising, inter alia, at least one linkage member having a
flat body region and a flange member, an elongated torsion
member and a weld seam integrally attached to the flange
member and the outer surface of the torsion member. Claims 95
through 15 are drawn to a seat track mechanism comprising,
inter alia, a linkage member having a flat body portion and a
flange member, a torsion bar and a weld seam integrally
attached to the terminal surface of the flange member and the
outer surface of the torsion bar.
In applying the test for obviousness , we reach the 6
conclusion that the claimed subject matter would not have been
suggested by the applied prior art. Specifically, we see no
4In claim 1, line 18, the phrase "the flange" should be
"the flange member" for proper antecedent basis.
5In claim 9, line 39, the phrase "the flange" should be
"the flange member" and in claim 9, lines 39 and 42, the term
"rod" should be "bar" for proper antecedent basis.
6 The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007