Appeal No. 2001-1801
Application 09/136,659
the teachings of Baum. In construing the term “seat belt”
appellants contend that we should have applied the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 CFR § 571 et sec., which set forth
the mandatory Federal standards for seat belts.
With regard to appellants’ change in length argument, we
pointed out on pages 6-7 of our earlier decision that the
adjustable length belt (31) of Baum need not be of a length to
encircle the seat back of a school bus as shown in Figure 1 of
the application drawings, since the claims on appeal do not
specify any such length requirement. In further discussing this
point, we noted that the adjustable length belt (31) of Baum is
capable of being secured to a portion of a seat of a school bus
such as a center post extending between a bench part of the bus
seat and the back thereof, or to a post wherein there are posts
at each end of the bus seat with a gap between the bench portion
and the back of the seat. Appellants have not argued or
demonstrated that the belt (31) of Baum is not capable of such a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007