Appeal No. 99-0630 Page 8
Application No. 08/633,400
complete statement of the appellants' argument can be found in
the brief (Paper No. 10, filed January 26, 1998).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3
through 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Osenkowski.
Osenkowski discloses a vehicle seat assembly (8) having a
child seat (26) integral with a fold down seat back (10) and
an interlock which prevents the use of the child seat unless
the fold down seat back is latched in a generally vertical
position and likewise prevents unlatching the seat back when
the child seat is deployed (see abstract). The seat back
latch (23), best seen in Figure 3, includes a handle (60)
which can be moved between a latched (solid line) position and
a release (broken line) position. When the handle (60) is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007