Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
restraint member (claim 5) on Pajon’s side flanges 30,
pretensioner 6, links 9 and cross-member 5, respectively.
As framed and argued by the appellants (see page 4 in the
main brief and pages 3 and 4 in the reply brief), the dispositive
issue with respect to the rejection of claim 1 is whether Pajon
meets the limitation in the claim requiring the casing with the
arm pivotally supported thereby to be “adapted to be attached to
a seat frame.” The appellants contend that Pajon’s side flanges
30 with arms or links 9 pivotally supported thereby do not meet
this limitation because the side flanges 30 are part of the seat
frame. This argument is not persuasive, however, because the
side flanges 30, which are part of the seat pan framework 3, are
attached to the backrest framework 2 which itself constitutes “a
seat frame” to the extent broadly recited in claim 1.
Hence, the appellants’ position that the subject matter
recited in claim 1 distinguishes over that disclosed by Pajon is
not well taken. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Pajon.
Claims 3 and 10 depend indirectly from claim 1 and further
define the power actuator as comprising a cylinder/piston
assembly. The appellants contention (see page 5 in the main
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007