Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a vehicle seat and a
storage receptacle disposed under the seat. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claims 9 and 15, copies of which appear in the APPENDIX to
the brief (Paper No. 8).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 1,736,108 Nov. 19,
1929
Hines 5,096,249 Mar. 17,
1992
The following rejection is before us for review. 2
Claims 4 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hines in view of Anderson.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
2The final rejection of claims 4 through 8 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was withdrawn by the
examiner upon entry of the amendment after final (Paper No.
5), as acknowledged in paragraph (6) of the answer (Paper No.
9). The first page of Paper No. 5 reflects entry of the
amendment upon appeal, superseding the earlier indication in
an advisory action (Paper No. 6) of a denial of entry.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007