Appeal No. 2002-1911 Page 16
Application No. 09/598,087
In this rejection (final rejection, p. 6), the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent
teachings of Verma and Asche; (2) ascertained that Verma fails to disclose "the seat
support member being a seat track member fixed to the riser;" and (3) concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify Verma based on the teachings of Asche to arrive at the claimed
invention.
The appellant in the brief (pp. 8-10) and reply brief (pp. 5 and 7) set forth his
rationale as to why one skilled in the art would not have modified Verma based on the
teachings of Asche to arrive at the claimed invention. We agree. We have reviewed
the teachings of Asche directed to the use of a presence sensor on an operator's seat
on equipment such as a skid steer loader and find no suggestion or motivation therein
for an artisan to have modified Verma to arrive at the claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4
to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Asche is
reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007