Appeal No. 2000-1302 Page 8
Application No. 08/766,057
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, appellant’s argument on page 2 of the reply
brief that Hoskinson does not show a collar on the back of a
bus seat is not persuasive with respect to claim 19 because
claim 19 does not recite a collar. It is well established
that limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5
(CCPA 1982).
For the foregoing reasons, appellant’s brief and reply
brief do not persuade us of any error in the examiner’s
determination of obviousness of the subject matter of claim
19. Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 19, as well as claims 12-14 which stand or fall
therewith (brief, page 4).
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007