Appeal No. 2001-0243
Application No. 09/001,285
65, through column 6, line 4). Lobanoff’s vehicle seat carries
no such entertainment devices, and the vanity mirror and
reading light assembly which is carried thereby has its own
adjustability feature. In this light, it is evident that the
combination of Lobanoff and Lu proposed by the examiner rests
on impermissible hindsight.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 20 as being unpatentable
over Lobanoff in view of Lu.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 1 through 4, 7 through 11, 13, 14 and
17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Lu is affirmed;
b) to reject claims 5, 6, 12, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Takeichi is
reversed; and
c) to reject claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lobanoff in view of Lu is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007