Appeal No. 2000-0856 Page 5
Application No. 08/676,623
extent of the child seat whereby a midpoint of the aperture of
the child seat is offset with respect to a midpoint of the
aperture of the adult seat, and
(3) a substantially circular lid.
The examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (answer,
pp. 4-5) is based on his ascertainment that Hancock teaches
all of the above-noted limitations and that the only
differences are the limitations that the child seat overhangs
the adult seat and the provision of magnets in the child seat
and the lid. With regard to these differences, the examiner
then determined that such differences would have been
suggested by the teachings of Alexander, Miller and Grunz.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 3-4) that Hancock does
not teach the aperture of the child seat being oriented more
toward the forward extent of the child seat whereby a midpoint
of the aperture of the child seat is offset with respect to a
midpoint of the aperture of the adult seat. In fact, the
appellants urge that Figure 3 of Hancock shows that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007