Appeal No. 2004-1408
Application No. 10/166,590
Because we do not find any of the appellant’s arguments to
be persuasive, we decline to modify our original decision in any
respect.
The appellant argues that Cienfuegos does not provide any
motivation to form the claimed adjustable support and in fact
teaches away from it. (Request at 2.) Specifically, the
appellant alleges (id.):
The structural requirements logically imposed by
the reference to form a device adjustable to hold a
seat at a plurality of closely spaced apart elevations
to accommodate a plurality of users having different
sizes is in direct conflict with the required large
distance (“greater than about 2 inches”) between first
and second adjacent holdable positions. The reference
teaches away from the claimed widely spaced apart
holdable positions by suggesting a mechanism operable
to hold a seat at a plurality of closely spaced apart
positions to fit all of a plurality of users having a
variety of sizes. In conflict with MPEP 2143.01, the
asserted modification renders the prior art
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
We do not agree. While Cienfuegos teaches that an
“exercycle in a gymnasium is used by large numbers of different
people during the course of the day” (column 3, lines 1-3),
nothing in the reference indicates that the disclosed adjustable
support must necessarily accommodate “all of a plurality of
users having a variety of sizes.” That is, nothing in
Cienfuegos indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art that a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007