Appeal No. 2000-0913
Application No. 09/067,123
As to claims 2, 6, 11 and 12, given the similarity of
purpose and operation of Niebuhr and Busch, the examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to substitute the
single restraint arm and shoulder belt arrangement of Busch in
Niebuhr in place of the primary reference’s plural restraining
arm arrangement in order to more securely hold an occupant in
the seat is well taken. The result would be a restraint
system that corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2
(“restraint device has a single pivoting arm”), claims 11 and
12 (“restraint device . . . including a belt connected to the
bar and configured to hold the driver in the driver’s seat”),
and claim 6, which reads substantially the same as claims 11
and 12.
Appellants argue on page 11 of the brief that Busch does
not disclose a restraint arm in the form of a “single bar,”
but
rather a series of articulated male and female segments 24, 26
surrounded by a molded cover. While we appreciate that
Busch’s arm assembly comprises a number of internal parts or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007