Appeal No. 2001-0088 Page 16
Application No. 09/271,571
adjusted to suit the individual driver, instead of an
adjustable seat track or with a shorter adjustable seat track.
From these combined teachings, in applying the test for
obviousness, it is our opinion that it would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to have utilized Cicotte's control pedal
apparatus as a personalization device in Murphy's system for
the self-evident advantages thereof.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 20
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claim 20 reads as follows:
An apparatus as recited in claim 16 including a
controller adapted to be associated with the vehicle for
selectively positioning said pedal relative to the
vehicle structure, said controller including a first
control for moving the pedal in a first direction and a
second control for moving said pedal in a second
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007