Appeal No. 1997-4246
Application No. 08/542,085
According to appellants, the deformation problem was
previously corrected by increasing the entire seat firmness by
using a thicker seat skin or changing the material or density
of cushion stuffing.
On the other hand, Daimler-Benz reveals that the problem of
the formation of a local depression in a seat is known, with a
resolution being to incorporate beneath the more heavily
loaded areas (Fig. 5) less flexible (denser) material, as
compared to the rest of the seat. The examiner should
collectively assess these latter teachings to ascertain
whether they would have been suggestive to one having ordinary
skill in the art of the straddle-type vehicle seat of claims 1
and 13. If so suggestive, the examiner should evaluate these
same references alone or with other known and relevant
references relative to the other claims in the application.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7
through 9, 13, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Daimler-Benz;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007