Appeal No. 2002-0586
Application 08/949,213
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following reference:
Kaptur et al. (Kaptur) 3,147,617 Sep. 08, 1964
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 17, and 19 to 32 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kaptur; and claim 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaptur. (Answer, p. 3).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s
rejections are not well founded. Our reasons for this determination follow. We will limit
our discussion to claim 1, the sole independent claim.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
The invention is directed to a design template that incorporates posture as part of
the geometric representation of a seat occupant. The design template comprises a torso
containing indicia of skeletal landmarks. According to the specification, page 4, the
design template allows seat designers to accurately represent the centerline position and
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007