Appeal No. 99-0630 Page 7
Application No. 08/633,400
said backrest portion relative to said seat portion between a
generally vertical use position and a generally horizontal
folded position; a seat latch for selectively locking said
backrest portion in said vertical use position; a child seat
integrally recessed within said backrest portion for securing
a child therein, said child seat including a bottom cushion
pivotally moveable between a stowed position and a deployed
position; an interlock for permitting movement of said bottom
cushion from said stowed position only when said backrest
portion is in said vertical use position; said interlock
including a manual lock for constantly and unyieldingly
locking said bottom cushion in said stowed position when said
backrest portion is in said vertical use position until
deliberately released therefrom, said manual lock including a
remote child actuator for deliberately releasing said manual
lock while said bottom cushion remains in said stowed position
to allow subsequent movement of said bottom cushion toward
said deployed position.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Osenkowski et al. (Osenkowski) 5,383,707 Jan. 24,
1995
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 3 through 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Osenkowski.
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellants appears
in the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed March 31, 1998), while the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007