Appeal No. 1999-2799 Page 3
Application No. 08/609,381
and to the brief (Paper No. 16) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. For the reasons which follow we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection.
The examiner contends that Davies discloses the subject
matter of independent claim 1 with the exception of the
feature that the second latching member is selectively
moveable to a released position free of engagement with the
first latching member when the seat is in its normal riding
position, and appellant does not take issue with this
contention. As is apparent from Davies' discussion on page 2,
in lines 110-126, Davies' second latching members (spring
controlled balls provided in the portion b2), which are
adapted to engage with corresponding recesses (first latching
members) in the inner faces of the cheeks of the head a1, are
moveable to the released position free of engagement with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007