Appeal No. 2000-0856 Page 6
Application No. 08/676,623
aperture in the child seat is oriented more toward a rearward
extent than the aperture in the adult seat.
The examiner's response (answer, p. 6) to this argument
of the appellants is that Figure 2 of Hancock "clearly
illustrates the 'rearward extent' 12 of the child seat to be
wider than the 'forward extent' thereof (at 14)."
After reviewing the disclosure of Hancock, it is our
opinion that Hancock does not disclose the aperture 11 of the
child seat 10 being oriented more toward the forward extent of
the child seat whereby a midpoint of the aperture 11 of the
child seat 10 is offset with respect to a midpoint of the
aperture 6 of the adult seat 5. The examiner's position that
this limitation is disclosed by Hancock is shear speculation.
In that regard, the drawings of Hancock are schematic in
nature and therefore cannot be relied upon in the manner set
forth by the examiner. Furthermore, the specification of
Hancock is silent as to the location of the respective
midpoints of the aperture 11 of the child seat 10 and the
aperture 6 of the adult seat 5. The conclusion that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007