Appeal No. 1999-2781
Application No. 08/656,299
biased by the spring (41), or the other spring associated with
the hand release (42), to remain in the lock condition, as we
consider to be required of the pawl in appellant's claim 1 on
appeal.
We also will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fertier or Kell in view of Olson. In addition to the
fact that we see no basis (teaching, suggestion or motivation)
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
utilize the brake members (150, 164) of Olson in the seat belt
inertia reel of Kell or the safety elevator of Fertier, we
note that the addition of any such brake members to either
Kell or Fertier would not overcome or provide for the
deficiency in the primary references already noted above with
regard to appellant's independent claim 1, from which claims 8
and 9 ultimately depend.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 13,
15, 20, 25 through 28 and 30 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kell (Fig. 11), Fritsche, or
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007