Appeal No. 2001-0206
Application 08/959,964
having an abutment surface or means which receives or is
dimensioned to receive or support only the portion of a
rider’s anatomy adjacent the ischial bones while not engaging,
compressing and/or squeezing any surrounding tissue or muscle.
Barker does not expressly disclose such a seat. The
examiner’s apparent position that Barker’s seat is inherently
capable of functioning in accordance with the claims is unduly
speculative and, in any event, is not on point. Although the
claim limitations at issue are cast in functional or
operational terms, they nonetheless define the structure,
e.g., the dimensions, of the seat. Barker simply does not
disclose such a seat, either expressly or under principles of
inherency. Indeed, Barker’s teaching that the seat disclosed
therein provides a support area which is much larger and more
uniformly weight-bearing than the typical bicycle seat is
inconsonant with the above noted limitations in the
appellant’s claims.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 2, 10, 18, 20, 22,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007