Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 6
Application No. 08/371,511
the examiner. Serber is very specific in stating that the
shoulder belt disclosed (there is no lap belt) is attached to
the floor and the roof or side wall of the vehicle; it is not
attached to the seat assembly. Nor is the Serber belt attached
at its lower end, where a lap belt also conventionally would be
attached if it were present, at a point above the horizontal
plane where the seatpan and the seat back meet. Considering
that Serber wants very specific motions occur to the seat
occupant upon deceleration in order to prevent submarining (see
Figures 3A-3C), absent any teaching in the reference or other
evidence to the contrary, it is speculative to assume that
these motions, which are the crux of Serber’s invention, would
result if the disclosed belt were replaced with one attached in
the manner required by the appellant’s claim 1. The examiner
seeks to justify the proposed modification by offering the
conclusion that it would provide obvious protection to the
passenger’s back. Such a teaching is not found in either
reference, however, nor is evidence offered in support of it,
and therefore from our perspective it also is based upon
speculation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007