Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
it does not meet this limitation. The examiner’s determination
to the contrary rests on an unreasonable interpretation of the
claim language at issue (see page 4 in the answer).
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13 and 14
As Pajon does not teach, and would not have suggested, a
vehicle seat device responding to the limitation in parent claim
5 requiring the restraint member to be “fixedly attached” to the
free end of the arm, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Pajon.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6, 8
through 10 and 13 through 15 is affirmed with respect to claims 1
through 4 and 8 through 10 and reversed with respect to claims 5,
6 and 13 through 15.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007