Appeal No. 2001-1801
Application 09/136,659
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Baum, and reversed the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Baum and Cummings.
We have carefully considered each of the points of argument
raised by appellants in their request for rehearing, however,
those arguments do not persuade us that our decision was in error
in any respect.
Appellants main point of argument centers on this panel’s
determination that the adjustable waist belt (31) of Baum and the
camera bag associated therewith constitute a “portable seat belt
assembly” as broadly set forth in claims 1, 2, 14 and 15 on
appeal. More particularly, appellants urge that we have
incorrectly determined that the adjustable waist belt (31) of
Baum is capable of performing the intended use of a seat belt for
attachment to a seat of a school bus. In that regard, appellants
urge (request, page 2-3) that if the belt of Baum were attempted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007