Appeal No. 2001-1801
Application 09/136,659
As for appellants’ attempt to read the Federal regulations
into the broadly recited “seat belt” of the claims on appeal, we
see no basis to do so. Appellants are certainly free to amend the
claims on appeal to better define the structural requirements of
the belt therein, but, as currently set forth, the “seat belt”
merely defines a belt that is capable of attachment to a seat of
a school bus and of providing some degree of restraint for a
child, a standard we have already noted above that the adjustable
belt (31) of Baum meets.
Contrary to appellants’ assertions (request, page 6), we
have not disregarded the terms “seat belt assembly” in the
preamble and “seat belt” in the body of the claims under appeal,
we have merely determined that such recitations are entitled to a
broad construction, which the adjustable belt (31) of Baum fully
meets. Similarly, we have broadly construed the requirement in
claim 14 on appeal regarding the “strap means for securing said
belly pack around the waist of an individual.” Again, appellants
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007